From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Apr 1 03:54:42 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:54:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D953062.9000808@nhcc.net> On 3/31/2011 7:28 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : so, penalty, optional, "points" and takeout doubles shan't be > alerted, and more specific doubles (e.g. promising some suit) shall. Seems reasonable. What are the rules on redoubles? > N E > 1C Dbl Rdbl 1H > Dbl > > You, East, hold : AKJx - Jxxx - Axx - xx. > What do you bid ? Ask about the auction, of course, but probably pass for now. I may compete later. Some would raise now if the double of 1H isn't penalty. > Explanation : > Rdbl = 5-8 HCP, (semi-)balanced (was 2245) Seems it should have been alerted, though maybe not if the message was "we're making 1C" and nothing more. > Dbl = negative (with 4225 13-count). I don't want to change my earlier pass, but what was partner's hand that he bid only 1H and not something stronger? Seems he should have had close to 8 HCP and five hearts, an obvious 2H or perhaps 3H. > Even after a pre-alert that "we've some special doubles and > redoubles". Might have been a clue to ask, but I'm still surprised the redouble wasn't alerted. No alert on opener's takeout double doesn't surprise me at all. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Apr 1 04:52:33 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:52:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie In-Reply-To: <6872D26F-95D9-487D-A6C9-EB48B2D3E4DE@starpower.net> References: <6872D26F-95D9-487D-A6C9-EB48B2D3E4DE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <201104010253.p312r4Lv013517@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 12:54 AM 1/04/2011, you wrote: >On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > >> If a blml lurker would like to reach the greater height of semi- > >> expert I would recommend reading and rereading the book Card > >> Play Technique by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo (gaining a feel > >> for declarer and defensive techniques) and then playing a > >> skeletal Standard or Acol system for a few years (gaining a feel > >> for hand evaluation and competitive bidding). > > > > This is old hat. I have heard this over and over for more than a > > decade. It is the usual advice: You should voluntarily apprentice > > yourself to a poor method for a few years---using a bunch of > > boring, poorly thought out, ordinary stuff, and maybe after waiting > > a few years, you can win something worthwhile. > > > > I recommend the complete opposite for most of my students. I have > > helped several total beginners win right away with unusual bidding > > methods. A complete beginner can win large club events with > > greatly superior methods, even without great card-playing technique. > > > > Anyway, that is what I teach, because I want my students to win > > right away. Standard methods are sometimes quite poor. There is > > no reason that you must always play the most boring stuff possible, > > in my opinion. Learn some great bidding methods, and you may well > > be able to scratch immediately. The conventional wisdom is best > > ignored when it is wrong. > > > > This common idea, which Richard endorsed, that you must wait two > > years before you get to do something interesting and start a habit > > of winning---How absurd! > > > > Bridge is a game. Do you want to win right away, or not? Do you > > want to use HCP, or something vastly better? How do you want to > > win---through superior card play or superior bidding? I think that > > it usually easier to improve your bidding. > > > > Some players want to win quickly through superior bidding. It is > > not the only way, admittedly, but it is a viable option. Why does > > the convention wisdom, like what Richard stated, denigrate this > > option? Let the player choose what he wants. > >That's all well and good if Jerry's students are all planning to >confine their future in bridge to playing in dedicated permanent >partnerships. But what happens when one of them, as an individual, >is called upon to sit down at the table with a partner who has not >been brought up on Jerry's superior methods? Lacking knowledge of or >any feel for the fundamental principles of the "boring" standard >substrate, how is he to cope? Is Jerry training his players >exclusively for play at his club? > >You cannot, IMO, rise to the level of an expert player lacking the >ability to play a reasonable game with a comparably expert partner >who is unfamiliar with your particular favorite bidding methods. And >that requires, as Richard says, "gaining a feel for [the principles >of] hand evaluation and competitive bidding" that go well beyond the >specifics of any particular system. > > >Eric Landau >1107 Dale Drive >Silver Spring MD 20910 >ehaa at starpower.net > It's no use. I have been trying to get this out of my mind for about 4 days. I am a good player, but with my last remaining partner we play what Richard calls "Dorothy Acol". (The other 4 partners died, or according to one theory, took the easy way out). It is never the case when we finish an unlucky 2nd, or more distant, that I chastise myself with 'if only we played CRO 2's, or TWERB, or transfer responses, or even RKCB - we would have done better'. Rather it is carelessness, bad judgement, bad luck, or more frequently these days, forgetting all the cards that have been played, that causes our fall from the winner's circle. So I am intrigued with Jerry's assertion that had we only learnt the correct system those many years ago, we would even now be covering ourselves with glory. But I am worried that some of the nouvelle cuisine gadgets that even the lol brigade regularly deploy against us, might actually be illegal in the US, and perhaps also in UK. So my question is, what is this fabulous system please? I can guarantee that we will not be embracing it nor even the well known Symmetric Relay system, but my curiosity is aroused, and my sleep is being disturbed by my ignorance of an easy panacea for my ills, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 1 08:10:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:10:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner (amalgamation of several recent posts): >AG : one point for you. A player learning a strange system needs a >good memory and combinatorial skills. > >Now, if that's his long suit, why do you deny him the right to use it? Richard Hills: Because it is a non-existent right. Law 40 specifically gives the local Regulating Authority the power to protect the right of novice and intermediate players to enjoy the game without being upset by Special Partnership Understandings which "may not be readily understood and anticipated" by them. Alain Gottcheiner (amalgamation of several recent posts): >Now, I won't state my opinion about the local legislation which >disallows alerting any doubles, or I would be the rudest. > >And then some will tell us that our top is undeserved. >And he will be right. > >Why do I fell that something is rotten ? > >Yes, it is a serious ethical problem, being compelled by regulations to >baffle opponents. > >Well, I suppose that this time you really intended to sound rude ? Richard Hills: I am also being rude about the Richard Hills of 1984 - 1985. Very lax local Tasmanian regulations back then permitted my partner and I to play Forcing Pass Relay with a 1H Fert in low-level tournaments. Alain Gottcheiner (amalgamation of several recent posts): >And we would be right too, to have followed the rule. >And the rule would be perfectly logical. > >If somebody has a solution to this, I'm open to it. Richard Hills: >From my 21st century perspective, the 1984 - 1985 Richard Hills was wrong to take advantage of the illogically lax Tasmanian system regulations. I should have stuck to the old-fashioned but better designed Symmetric Relay system (which is easy for opponents to defend against, since the one-level opening bids strongly resemble the commonplace Precision system). The Symmetric Relay system was carefully designed by experts from New Zealand (particularly the world-class Kiwi expert Professor Roy Kerr), so the medium-level imps gained by the system were due to its intrinsic merits. Meanwhile, my 1984 - 1985 Forcing Pass Relay system was carelessly designed by a Futile Willie (moi), so the high- level imps gained by the system were due to unfair bunny-bashing. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 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 Fri Apr 1 20:39:31 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:39:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim Message-ID: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> K KQ109 AQJ1098 AQ xx xxx J8xx x Kxxx xx Kxx J10xxxxx AQJ109xx A76x x x Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards on the table and says "all mine". TD! The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) Your decision, please. From adam at irvine.com Fri Apr 1 21:01:14 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:01:14 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:39:31 +0200." <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <20110401190116.D3684A8C837@mailhub.irvine.com> Peter wrote: > K > KQ109 > AQJ1098 > AQ > xx xxx > J8xx x > Kxxx xx > Kxx J10xxxxx > AQJ109xx > A76x > x > x > > Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. > Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards > on the table and says "all mine". TD! > > The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of > (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) > > Your decision, please. I rule down 1, because a declarer who thinks he has 13 top tricks and is forced to play the hand out may well pitch the CQ early on the spades, destroying any show-up squeeze, and may later play the hearts in such a way as to end up in dummy unable to take the diamond finesse. -- Adam From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 21:14:44 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:14:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Peter Eidt wrote: > > ? ? ? ?K > ? ? ? ?KQ109 > ? ? ? ?AQJ1098 > ? ? ? ?AQ > xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?xxx > J8xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?x > Kxxx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? xx > Kxx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?J10xxxxx > ? ? ? AQJ109xx > ? ? ? A76x > ? ? ? x > ? ? ? x > > Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. > Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards > on the table and says "all mine". TD! > > The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of > (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) > > Your decision, please. > I agree with Adam, down 1, but thinking of show-up squeezes seems a waste of time. He thinks he has winners, let him cash them until the "oops" moment arrives. Cash all of the top cards in North (with a low spade from hand) for five tricks, then go to your HA, keep cashing. Opps, down 1. Jerry Fusselman From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 21:15:33 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:15:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D962455.8050201@gmail.com> W dniu 2011-04-01 20:39, Peter Eidt pisze: > Your decision, please. Though: 7spades + 4hearts + ace + ace. It is possible, I think, to play spades, then both aces, then KQ in hearts, and then be down one ;] ?K From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 21:44:12 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 21:44:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000601cbf0a5$2e403120$8ac09360$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim > > K > KQ109 > AQJ1098 > AQ > xx xxx > J8xx x > Kxxx xx > Kxx J10xxxxx > AQJ109xx > A76x > x > x > > Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. > Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards > on the table and says "all mine". TD! > > The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of > (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) > > Your decision, please. One down, WTP? (When this board from absolute top level bridge was first presented on BBO forums I believed there would be an automatic Vienna coup by cashing the minor aces before running the spades, and this squeeze is so simple it should be recognized and taken care of by players at this level. However later I found that South lacks one entry for this to work. So South will have his 7 tricks in spades, 3 in hearts and the minor aces. West is certainly squeezed in three suits as the cards lie, but South cannot know for certain which cards to discard from dummy.) From harsanyi at t-online.de Fri Apr 1 22:26:18 2011 From: harsanyi at t-online.de (Josef Harsanyi) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:26:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <000601cbf0a5$2e403120$8ac09360$@no> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <000601cbf0a5$2e403120$8ac09360$@no> Message-ID: <0799F742-09A3-4379-9778-D5F9DCCFE8EB@t-online.de> Two variants of answering the question of TD "Why did you claim?" 1. It is trivial that I prepare a Vienna coup for the case, if the are not 3-2 or singleton J. 2. Oops, it was a stupid claim from me. Will you decide differently depending on the answer, if declarer did Not give Any explanation earlyer? Do you ASK at all by this Way the declarer? Josef Von meinem iPhone gesendet Am 01.04.2011 um 21:44 schrieb "Sven Pran" : > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt >> Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim >> >> K >> KQ109 >> AQJ1098 >> AQ >> xx xxx >> J8xx x >> Kxxx xx >> Kxx J10xxxxx >> AQJ109xx >> A76x >> x >> x >> >> Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. >> Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards >> on the table and says "all mine". TD! >> >> The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of >> (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) >> >> Your decision, please. > > One down, WTP? > > (When this board from absolute top level bridge was first presented on BBO > forums I believed there would be an automatic Vienna coup by cashing the > minor aces before running the spades, and this squeeze is so simple it > should be recognized and taken care of by players at this level. However > later I found that South lacks one entry for this to work. So South will > have his 7 tricks in spades, 3 in hearts and the minor aces. West is > certainly squeezed in three suits as the cards lie, but South cannot know > for certain which cards to discard from dummy.) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 1 22:58:22 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:58:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <0799F742-09A3-4379-9778-D5F9DCCFE8EB@t-online.de> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <000601cbf0a5$2e403120$8ac09360$@no> <0799F742-09A3-4379-9778-D5F9DCCFE8EB@t-online.de> Message-ID: <000a01cbf0af$89b05990$9d110cb0$@no> On Behalf Of Josef Harsanyi > Two variants of answering the question of TD "Why did you claim?" > 1. It is trivial that I prepare a Vienna coup for the case, if the are > not 3-2 or singleton J. > 2. Oops, it was a stupid claim from me. > > Will you decide differently depending on the answer, if declarer did > Not give Any explanation earlyer? > Do you ASK at all by this Way the declarer? > > Josef Give North: K QT9x AQJT98 AQ And South: AQJT9xx AK76 x x I would accept the claim if South states winning the spade lead, cashing his two minor aces, enter home with AH and then run all the spades holding on to dummy's minor Queens and Qx in hearts. When he now crosses to QH he will have the rest unless one defender originally held four hearts to the Jack and the other defender held both minor Kings (neither of them stiff). I would expect a top level bridge player to see this line automatically, but I would not allow him to give this as a claim statement "on second thoughts". > Am 01.04.2011 um 21:44 schrieb "Sven Pran" : > > > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > >> Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim > >> > >> K > >> KQ109 > >> AQJ1098 > >> AQ > >> xx xxx > >> J8xx x > >> Kxxx xx > >> Kxx J10xxxxx > >> AQJ109xx > >> A76x > >> x > >> x > >> > >> Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. > >> Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards > >> on the table and says "all mine". TD! > >> > >> The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of > >> (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) > >> > >> Your decision, please. > > > > One down, WTP? > > > > (When this board from absolute top level bridge was first presented > on BBO > > forums I believed there would be an automatic Vienna coup by cashing > the > > minor aces before running the spades, and this squeeze is so simple > it > > should be recognized and taken care of by players at this level. > However > > later I found that South lacks one entry for this to work. So South > will > > have his 7 tricks in spades, 3 in hearts and the minor aces. West is > > certainly squeezed in three suits as the cards lie, but South cannot > know > > for certain which cards to discard from dummy.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at arcor.de Sat Apr 2 04:13:14 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 04:13:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <784744483.615416.1301710394282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Peter Eidt wrote: > K > KQ109 > AQJ1098 > AQ > xx xxx > J8xx x > Kxxx xx > Kxx J10xxxxx > AQJ109xx > A76x > x > x > > Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. > Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards > on the table and says "all mine". TD! > > The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of > (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) I would allow the claim in case hearts were 5-0; not playing the HK or HK first is irrational at the level of play you indicated. I would also allow the claim on a D or C lead, where it is pretty automatic to cash dummy's minor suit aces and the HK, and then run all the spades, where as the hand lies I don't see how a skilled declarer can go down, albeit at the table some might still manage to do that. However, hearts are not 5-0, they are 4-1, and the spade lead took away a crucial entry necessary for various reasonable lines which work on this hand. There still is a show-up squeeze, but declarer would have to burn all bridges and commit to going down if E has the HJxxx. I thus deem this claim no good. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 2 11:36:48 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:36:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D96EE30.9080004@skynet.be> Well, it is my firm opinion that claimer will -at some point in time- realize that he has miscounted. I would allow him to play a sensible line from that moment on. Sadly for him, one of the sensible lines starts with KQ of hearts, so the heart jack will not be picked up. At that point, he may have one or two more sensible lines: the finesse on the minors, both of which succeed. So the only question that remains is whether the line: CA, DA, HK, HQ is a "sensible" line. I believe it is. One down. Peter Eidt wrote: > K > KQ109 > AQJ1098 > AQ > xx xxx > J8xx x > Kxxx xx > Kxx J10xxxxx > AQJ109xx > A76x > x > x > > Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. > Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards > on the table and says "all mine". TD! > > The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of > (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) > > Your decision, please. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3546 - Release Date: 04/02/11 08:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Apr 2 11:39:27 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:39:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim In-Reply-To: <0799F742-09A3-4379-9778-D5F9DCCFE8EB@t-online.de> References: <1Q5jFr-1ETFGC0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> <000601cbf0a5$2e403120$8ac09360$@no> <0799F742-09A3-4379-9778-D5F9DCCFE8EB@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D96EECF.5010406@skynet.be> Josef Harsanyi wrote: > Two variants of answering the question of TD "Why did you claim?" > 1. It is trivial that I prepare a Vienna coup for the case, if the are not 3-2 or singleton J. > 2. Oops, it was a stupid claim from me. > > Will you decide differently depending on the answer, if declarer did Not give > Any explanation earlyer? > Do you ASK at all by this Way the declarer? > Yes, you do. And you can easily distinguish between the very top player who saw this from the start and the liar who onely found it after recounting his tricks. > > Josef > > Von meinem iPhone gesendet > > Am 01.04.2011 um 21:44 schrieb "Sven Pran": > >> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt >>> Subject: [BLML] Faulty Claim >>> >>> K >>> KQ109 >>> AQJ1098 >>> AQ >>> xx xxx >>> J8xx x >>> Kxxx xx >>> Kxx J10xxxxx >>> AQJ109xx >>> A76x >>> x >>> x >>> >>> Declarer, South, plays in 7NT against a spade lead. >>> Overtaking the spade K with his Ace he puts his cards >>> on the table and says "all mine". TD! >>> >>> The TD is directing in the first league; all players are of >>> (very) high standard - though some of them cannot count ;-) >>> >>> Your decision, please. >> >> One down, WTP? >> >> (When this board from absolute top level bridge was first presented on BBO >> forums I believed there would be an automatic Vienna coup by cashing the >> minor aces before running the spades, and this squeeze is so simple it >> should be recognized and taken care of by players at this level. However >> later I found that South lacks one entry for this to work. So South will >> have his 7 tricks in spades, 3 in hearts and the minor aces. West is >> certainly squeezed in three suits as the cards lie, but South cannot know >> for certain which cards to discard from dummy.) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3546 - Release Date: 04/02/11 08:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 01:26:24 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:26:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201104010253.p312r4Lv013517@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau, May 2006, on the futility of being too serious: >>>Everything Nigel writes is true. But money, power and sex are >>>serious business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we play for fun. Grattan Endicott, May 2006, on The Importance of Being Unearnest: >>+=+ Personally I have always found money, power and sex to be fun >>as well. >> ~ G ~ +=+ Eric Landau, May 2006, unrealistically naive: >>>It's just a game, isn't it? Master points are just a way to keep >>>score. They're not really worth anything, are they? Am I being >>>unrealistically naive about this? Jerry Fusselman, March 2011, realistically non-naive: >Some players want to win quickly through superior bidding. Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. The Importance of Being Unearnest about bridge is to have fun, not quick wins. I could have zillions of quick wins if I chose to shoot fish in a barrel by playing against the bunnies of Canberra's Grand Slam Bridge Club. But so what? "Futility, futility, all is futility." The ABF has adopted a fish in a barrel regulation; bunnies playing a simple Green system may also add Orange stickers to their System Cards, which force their opponents to temporarily suspend their bunny-bashing Brown Sticker conventions for that round. Thus BSCs may be used only against fellow semi-experts and brave bunnies (who might be brave enough to experiment with the use of BSCs themselves). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 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 Apr 4 04:15:20 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 04:15:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1755697922.700931.1301883320658.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The ABF has adopted a fish in a barrel regulation; bunnies playing a > simple Green system may also add Orange stickers to their System > Cards, which force their opponents to temporarily suspend their > bunny-bashing Brown Sticker conventions for that round. Thus BSCs > may be used only against fellow semi-experts and brave bunnies (who > might be brave enough to experiment with the use of BSCs themselves). How is that supposed to work? One cannot just "suspend the brown sticker conventions"; that leaves behind a broken, incomplete system which is no longer playable. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 4 04:56:05 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 04:56:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D946465.3040300@skynet.be> References: <4D946465.3040300@skynet.be> <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> <2057234169.417715.1301569484577.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <833669808.701123.1301885765588.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Jeff Easterson > >> Alerting doubles: I think the real problem is which doubles to alert. > >> In my recollection the fundamental idea was, when eliminating the > >> alerting of doubles, (at least in the federations in which I direct or > >> play) that the opponents could protect themselves by asking about > >> doubles - at least if they so desired. In my experience the alerting of > >> doubles too frequently gave UI to the partner. > >> Not an ideal solution to the problem (eliminating the alerts) and it > >> would appear a minority opinion, at least in blml but I am waiting to > >> hear a better one. Ciao, JE > > > > That argumentation for not alerting doubles is unsound - for starters, it forces opponents > > to create UI to get the information they need. > > > > Then, by not having clear regulations, the RA contributes to the whole > > mess. Instead, the RA should define the meaning of the most popular doubles > > (and if you remember the recent disagreement on what "penalty double" > > means, that is no easy), and then enforce that players use that > > terminology when alerting doubles. > > > > Which is what we did for 10 years. > And the definition was actually the one in the beginner's course: "a > double is penalty when partner has already spoken or when it is on a > game contract". > And yet very often the players said "I don't know when to alert". > At least that excuse has almost disappeared now - some 5 years after > we've changed to the rule of not alerting any doubles. > People still raise their eyebrows when I alert my partner's pass, though. I was referring to the fact that players have a different understanding what the term "penalty double" means in a given bidding situation. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 4 05:06:28 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:06:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D9441B8.8040400@gmail.com> References: <4D9441B8.8040400@gmail.com> <201103310351.p2V3p3Fl014021@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <917367266.701161.1301886388049.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Brian wrote: > On 03/30/2011 11:50 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > As you say somewhat tangential. I taught bridge for over 10 > > years. Simple 4 card majors, but I tried to teach how to > > play cards (limited success). As a director I have spent many > > enjoyable hours watching beginners with CCs as long as your > > arm who have no table feel, no card sense etc. I learnt by > > reading Mollo and Gardner and if they want to win, at least > > try reading this tome first. > > > > While I don't claim extensive experience as a teacher, my > statistically insignificant experience is that I got novices to pick > up the basics of bidding more quickly by using simple Precision rather > than simple Acol(*). It was a university club, BTW, and offering both > courses was an established precedent, not my idea. > > I've absolutely no disagreement with the idea that basic card play > should precede advanced conventions. I just question whether > prehistoric Acol should be seen as a necessary starting point. > Conventions *which make learning easier* are no bad thing. > > > Brian. > > (*) To the best of my recollection, 35 years on, the Acol book used > was Cohen and Lederer's "All About Acol". I know that the Precision > book used was Reese's "Precision Bidding and Precision Play", a > slightly-tweaked writeup of the basic Blue Team Precision system, but > we moved using the asking bids into a separate course. If "All About Acol" is as horrible as the same author's "The ABC of Contract Bridge" (one of the worst bridge books I have ever read), then it is not much of a surprise that success at learning bridge using that book was very limited. Generally, I believe that at the beginner level the choice of system is not important. You need to teach them the card play (Mollo and Gardner referenced above is excellent for that purpose), and once they can play the cards, they will quickly learn how to handle the bidding because they will understand which final contracts are good, and which are poor. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 4 05:19:16 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:19:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] netiquette In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87186407.701232.1301887156283.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > You are missing some very important distinctions. > > One is relevance. I think the technical quality of the laws would be much > better if a more modern method was used to construct them. So the quality > of the existing lawbook is a relevant issue to me and I think to BLML. Yes, clearly there is room for improvement in TFLB. > Relevant to this issue, Law 10 should address all table rulings, not just > rectifications of irregularites. This is a technical question, and my > capabilities as a director are irrelevant. That is not how TFLB is organized. TFLB is organized into many small quite specific individual laws, rather than a few monster-sized laws which nobody can understand anymore. > So you have to look at relevance. > > The second is willingness to provide evidence. If there is something in > that thread that calls into question my competence as director, which > there isn't, then Thomas could have mentioned that in his original post. > Or mentioned it when asked. You might have noticed that I simply have not answered your mail yet. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 05:39:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:39:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1755697922.700931.1301883320658.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>The ABF has adopted a fish in a barrel regulation; bunnies playing >>a simple Green system may also add Orange stickers to their System >>Cards, which force their opponents to temporarily suspend their >>bunny-bashing Brown Sticker conventions for that round. Thus >>BSCs may be used only against fellow semi-experts and brave >>bunnies (who might be brave enough to experiment with the use of >>BSCs themselves). Thomas Dehn: >How is that supposed to work? One cannot just "suspend the brown >sticker conventions"; that leaves behind a broken, incomplete >system which is no longer playable. Richard Hills: Although I know Jeff Rubens has an overly Ivory Tower approach to his preferred revision of the Lawbook in 2018, Jeff is a superb cardplay analyst. For example, with plenty of entries these are Declarer's trump suit Dummmy's trump suit KQ86 J975 and Jeff is one of the few experts to analyse the play correctly. An analogous 6NT situation also correctly analysed by Jeff is Declarer (4 tricks needed) Dummy 65432 KQT Jeff also has correct partnership psychology. Playing with a one- off partner in a single session, Jeff knew that his nuanced approach to Weak Two openings would clash with his pard's crude approach to Weak Two openings, so Jeff-pard agreed to suspend their 2D, 2H and 2S openings (requiring a call of Pass instead). In a January matchpointed Swiss Pairs event the Hills component of the Ali-Hills partnership was performing poorly. So we sunk to a lowly table against Orange Sticker opponents. Thus we were forced to suspend our Brown Sticker RCO 2H, 2S and 2NT openings. But was our system broken??? We simply decided to follow the useful Rubens idea, agreeing that hands which previously qualified for a 2H, 2S or 2NT pre-emptive opening would join the vast collection of hands which commenced with a non-descript natural Pass. And our "broken, incomplete system which was no longer playable" gained us our only maximum 25 vp win of the entire event. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 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 Apr 4 05:52:18 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 05:52:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1635202537.701411.1301889138476.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:37:02 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick > >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:32:22 -0400, wrote: > >> > >> > Tom Stoppard (1937 - ), playwright: > >> > > >> > "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." > >> > > >> >>> The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... > >> > > >> > Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): > >> > > >> > "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when > >> > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? > >> > see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." > >> > > >> > Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): > >> > > >> > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a > >> > rectification made by the players without his instructions." > >> > > >> >> Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table > >> >> rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do > >> >> not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was > >> >> really correct (even if it was correct). > >> >> > >> >> Here there was no infraction. Right? > >> > > >> > Wrong. An obvious infraction of Law 10A. > >> > >> > >> Wrong. The short answer is that L10A refers to rectifications, and those > >> (read the definitions) only follow irregularities. And there was no > >> irregularity. > > > > Players have no right to make up their own rulings. > > > > TFLB is not nearly as holely as you think it is. > > What is holely is your knowledge of the laws. > > > > Robert, when was your last TD course? > > Thomas, you could simply claim that players have no right to make up their > own ruling. I guess I would agree. They shouldn't. I wouldn't like that. > > You can claim this is in the law book. Which is the issue being discussed. The director's powers are not limited to irregularities. See L81C. If the players had a right to make their own rulings, that would be listed in TFLB. It clearly is not listed anywhere in TFLB. A faced down opening lead can be retracted under certain circumstances, for example if the player is not actually on lead, or if MI was detected before dummy came down (L41, L45 E2(a)). That is the purpose of having the opening lead face down, and of the whole procedure described in L41. Thus, the "ruling" at the table might easily have been wrong, which looks like an irregularity to me. > How should we settle this question? > > So far, I just said that Law 10 doesn't cover it. Because it restricts > itself to irregularities and rectifications. Do you disagree with that? > > Can you find anything in the laws to support your claim? That would > further the argument. > > I realize I might be the only one who gets tired of gratuitous insults and > petty slander, but if you could mix some facts and evidence into your > posting that would be nice. I have the impression that you frequently read something into TFLB that simply is not there, or you overlook something that is there. Not like Herman, who knows pretty well what the intent of TFLB is. Herman just happens to disagree with TFLB on a few topics, which is fine. I thus have the impression that most of your TD knowledge is from self study. Which is allowed by the ACBL. Self study is still better than simply making up rulings, but it is not the equivalent of an actual decent multi-day TD course given by an experienced director. No, I do not intent this as an insult. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 4 06:16:43 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 06:16:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <391846970.701633.1301890603021.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>The ABF has adopted a fish in a barrel regulation; bunnies playing > >>a simple Green system may also add Orange stickers to their System > >>Cards, which force their opponents to temporarily suspend their > >>bunny-bashing Brown Sticker conventions for that round. Thus > >>BSCs may be used only against fellow semi-experts and brave > >>bunnies (who might be brave enough to experiment with the use of > >>BSCs themselves). > > Thomas Dehn: > > >How is that supposed to work? One cannot just "suspend the brown > >sticker conventions"; that leaves behind a broken, incomplete > >system which is no longer playable. > > Richard Hills: > > Although I know Jeff Rubens has an overly Ivory Tower approach to > his preferred revision of the Lawbook in 2018, Jeff is a superb > cardplay analyst. For example, with plenty of entries these are > > Declarer's trump suit Dummmy's trump suit > KQ86 J975 > > and Jeff is one of the few experts to analyse the play correctly. > An analogous 6NT situation also correctly analysed by Jeff is > > Declarer (4 tricks needed) Dummy > 65432 KQT > > Jeff also has correct partnership psychology. Playing with a one- > off partner in a single session, Jeff knew that his nuanced > approach to Weak Two openings would clash with his pard's crude > approach to Weak Two openings, so Jeff-pard agreed to suspend their > 2D, 2H and 2S openings (requiring a call of Pass instead). > > In a January matchpointed Swiss Pairs event the Hills component of > the Ali-Hills partnership was performing poorly. So we sunk to a > lowly table against Orange Sticker opponents. Thus we were forced > to suspend our Brown Sticker RCO 2H, 2S and 2NT openings. But was > our system broken??? We simply decided to follow the useful Rubens > idea, agreeing that hands which previously qualified for a 2H, 2S > or 2NT pre-emptive opening would join the vast collection of hands > which commenced with a non-descript natural Pass. I have played constructive brown sticker methods, not just preempts on weak hands. I have played three card Canap? overcalls on 1C. I have played complex Romex-style trial bids that might reasonably be interpreted as psyches protected by system. I have played multi-type opening bids with ranges like 8-12 or 9-13, where the overall system then took into account that some of those hands were not opened at the one level. And so on. While a broken system should still be sufficient to bash bunnies, it won't be sufficient against expert opposition playing a Green system. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 4 07:15:00 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:15:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <391846970.701633.1301890603021.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >I have played constructive brown sticker methods, not just preempts >on weak hands. Richard Hills: To a certain extent "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder. Thomas Dehn: >I have played three card Canap? overcalls on 1C. Richard Hills: It is not necessary to play Canap? overcalls to get good results (indeed, in my extensive semi-expert experience, Canap? overcalls are highly vulnerable to competitive debacles whenever the opponents refuse to cooperate by now passing throughout). But indeed a Canap? style disconcerts bunny opponents, which is why the ABF classifies Canap? overcalls as Brown Sticker. Thomas Dehn: >I have played complex Romex-style trial bids that might reasonably >be interpreted as psyches protected by system. Richard Hills: I have played complex Forcing Pass Relay methods that might reasonably be interpreted as bunny bashing. For example -> 1985 Trials to select the Tasmanian Open Team Imps with Butler scoring against an Olympic datum Dlr: North Vul: Nil The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Williams Hills --- Pass (1) Pass (2) Pass (3) Pass (3) (1) 13+ hcp, any shape, forcing for one round (2) East-West had had an extensive discussion on how best to disrupt and pre-empt versus the Forcing Pass. But East now suddenly realised that he no longer had any call available to describe his balanced 24 hcp, so elected to pass and balance later. Unlucky, East was unable to pass in tempo. (3) Holding a Yarborough, I had an easy decision to violate system once East hesitated. (4) And West thought that her 3 hcp were insufficient justification to keep the auction alive. A 10 imp swing to the bunny bashers, with the rest of the East-West field easily reaching 3NT and equally easily scoring up 430. * * * Thomas Dehn, on ABF shooting-fish-in-a-barrel Orange Sticker rule: >..... >While a broken system should still be sufficient to bash bunnies, >it won't be sufficient against expert opposition playing a Green >system. Richard Hills: During the early(1) part of his career, the world-class Aussie player Tim Seres played the unsound New South Wales system (a "little club" method, thus it would nowadays be deemed a Blue system). But later on Seres was even more successful playing a very very very simple Standard American system. So if Seres was alive today, his simple Standard methods would nowadays be deemed a Green system. However, while playing a Green system is the first criterion, the second criterion for eligibility to place Orange Stickers on one's System Cards is that "both players are below the status of National Master, or one player is below the status of Local Master". For many many many years (including some years after his death) Tim Seres held more masterpoints than any other Aussie. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. The answer was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 4 09:17:30 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:17:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the > organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. The answer > was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." > I had heard this story before, but I remember it as Argentina vs Australia. Are you certain about Brazil? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 4 09:27:30 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:27:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> References: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201104040728.p347SEqf023871@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:17 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the > > organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. The answer > > was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." > > > >I had heard this story before, but I remember it as Argentina vs >Australia. Are you certain about Brazil? > I don't think Argentina made the 1964 Olympiad, perhaps you are thinking of soccer. My memory is not too good either, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >-- >Herman De Wael >Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 4 09:53:35 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:53:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201104040728.p347SEqf023871@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> <201104040728.p347SEqf023871@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > At 05:17 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the >>> organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. The answer >>> was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." >>> >> >> I had heard this story before, but I remember it as Argentina vs >> Australia. Are you certain about Brazil? >> > I don't think Argentina made the 1964 Olympiad, perhaps > you are thinking of soccer. My memory is not too good > either, > considering that the Olympiad is free entry, it is not logical to think Argentina did not make it. And why do you think soccer players need to talk Hungarian? > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > >> -- >> Herman De Wael >> Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3548 - Release Date: 04/03/11 19:40:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 4 10:08:26 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:08:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> References: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> <201104040728.p347SEqf023871@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D997C7A.7000405@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/04/2011 9:53, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >> >> At 05:17 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>> (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the >>>> organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. The answer >>>> was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." >>>> >>> I had heard this story before, but I remember it as Argentina vs >>> Australia. Are you certain about Brazil? >>> >> I don't think Argentina made the 1964 Olympiad, perhaps >> you are thinking of soccer. My memory is not too good >> either, >> > considering that the Olympiad is free entry, it is not logical to think > Argentina did not make it. And why do you think soccer players need to > talk Hungarian? > There was a time when at least half of the best players in the world spoke Hungarian, even though some played for other teams, due to Hungary having been deprived of its soul. BTW, in 1964, Argentina were nowhere as far as soccer is concerned. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 4 10:12:24 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:12:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <833669808.701123.1301885765588.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <4D946465.3040300@skynet.be> <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> <2057234169.417715.1301569484577.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <833669808.701123.1301885765588.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D997D68.8070501@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/04/2011 4:56, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> Jeff Easterson >>>> Alerting doubles: I think the real problem is which doubles to alert. >>>> In my recollection the fundamental idea was, when eliminating the >>>> alerting of doubles, (at least in the federations in which I direct or >>>> play) that the opponents could protect themselves by asking about >>>> doubles - at least if they so desired. In my experience the alerting of >>>> doubles too frequently gave UI to the partner. >>>> Not an ideal solution to the problem (eliminating the alerts) and it >>>> would appear a minority opinion, at least in blml but I am waiting to >>>> hear a better one. Ciao, JE >>> That argumentation for not alerting doubles is unsound - for starters, it forces opponents >>> to create UI to get the information they need. >>> >>> Then, by not having clear regulations, the RA contributes to the whole >>> mess. Instead, the RA should define the meaning of the most popular doubles >>> (and if you remember the recent disagreement on what "penalty double" >>> means, that is no easy), and then enforce that players use that >>> terminology when alerting doubles. >>> >> Which is what we did for 10 years. >> And the definition was actually the one in the beginner's course: "a >> double is penalty when partner has already spoken or when it is on a >> game contract". >> And yet very often the players said "I don't know when to alert". >> At least that excuse has almost disappeared now - some 5 years after >> we've changed to the rule of not alerting any doubles. >> People still raise their eyebrows when I alert my partner's pass, though. > I was referring to the fact that players have a different > understanding what the term "penalty double" means > in a given bidding situation. > AG : if that's the case, some players are wrong. There is only one meaning for a penalty double : "given what I know of the deal, I think that they'll go down and we could take profit from this". One could admit another meaning : "I'm not sure it goes down, but I'm ready to bet that it does" (the infamous matchpoint double) If a double with some other agreed meaning is introduced as a penalty-double, there is MI. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 4 10:26:55 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:26:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1186430757.715715.1301905616000.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Thomas Dehn: > > >I have played constructive brown sticker methods, not just preempts > >on weak hands. > > Richard Hills: > > To a certain extent "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder. > > Thomas Dehn: > > >I have played three card Canap? overcalls on 1C. > > Richard Hills: > > It is not necessary to play Canap? overcalls to get good results > (indeed, in my extensive semi-expert experience, Canap? overcalls > are highly vulnerable to competitive debacles whenever the opponents > refuse to cooperate by now passing throughout). > > But indeed a Canap? style disconcerts bunny opponents, which is why > the ABF classifies Canap? overcalls as Brown Sticker. I agree that is makes sense to define Canap? overcalls as Brown Sticker in when Canap? is not common within the RA's area (like it is in Austria or Italy). Myself, I am using the Canap? overcalls over 1C to be able to more safely overcall with hands that contains a real club suit (constructive). And to make it more difficult for them to find their 4-4 fits (destructive). Now, while is certainly is possible to play other methods, what is not easily possible is to switch from Canap? to a different approach. Clearly the approach of simply passing some hands does not apply to one level overcalls. And also clearly if I disable Canap?, my methods would be very different, and my existing CC would be completely incorrect. E.g., a 2C overcall is now a two-suiter instead of a four card C suit with a longer five card suit. Follow up bidding to a Canap? overcall also is totally different to a natural overcall. So, does the ABL require pairs playing brown sticker methods to always have two sets of CCs with them, one for the brown sticker system, and one for their non-brown sticker system? Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 4 17:26:40 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 11:26:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1635202537.701411.1301889138476.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <1635202537.701411.1301889138476.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 23:52:18 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:37:02 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> > Robert Frick >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:32:22 -0400, >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Tom Stoppard (1937 - ), playwright: >> >> > >> >> > "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." >> >> > >> >> >>> The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... >> >> > >> >> > Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): >> >> > >> >> > "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when >> >> > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? >> >> > see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." >> >> > >> >> > Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): >> >> > >> >> > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a >> >> > rectification made by the players without his instructions." >> >> > >> >> >> Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table >> >> >> rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do >> >> >> not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was >> >> >> really correct (even if it was correct). >> >> >> >> >> >> Here there was no infraction. Right? >> >> > >> >> > Wrong. An obvious infraction of Law 10A. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong. The short answer is that L10A refers to rectifications, and >> those >> >> (read the definitions) only follow irregularities. And there was no >> >> irregularity. >> > >> > Players have no right to make up their own rulings. >> > >> > TFLB is not nearly as holely as you think it is. >> > What is holely is your knowledge of the laws. >> > >> > Robert, when was your last TD course? >> >> Thomas, you could simply claim that players have no right to make up >> their >> own ruling. I guess I would agree. They shouldn't. I wouldn't like that. >> >> You can claim this is in the law book. Which is the issue being >> discussed. > > The director's powers are not limited to irregularities. See L81C. > > If the players had a right to make their own rulings, that > would be listed in TFLB. It clearly is not listed anywhere in TFLB. Saying hello also is not listed in the TFLB. > > A faced down opening lead can be retracted under > certain circumstances, for example if the player > is not actually on lead, or if MI was detected before dummy > came down (L41, L45 E2(a)). That is the purpose of having > the opening lead face down, and of the whole procedure > described in L41. Yes, but that kind of misses the point of the whole discussion. Maybe that is where we are not communicating. Yes, all of what you said is true. But at what point can the player not simply put the card back in his hand? Certainly when it is just taken out of the hand it can be put back. Certainly when it is face down on the table it cannot and what you say above applies. But where is the point where the player has lost his choice? I believe the lawbook uses the word "compulsory" to describe this point. > > Thus, the "ruling" at the table might easily have been wrong, > which looks like an irregularity to me. Everyone agrees that it looks like an irregularity and should be treated as an irregularity. I bet we all agree that the next law book should make it an irregularity. > > >> How should we settle this question? >> >> So far, I just said that Law 10 doesn't cover it. Because it restricts >> itself to irregularities and rectifications. Do you disagree with that? >> >> Can you find anything in the laws to support your claim? That would >> further the argument. >> >> I realize I might be the only one who gets tired of gratuitous insults >> and >> petty slander, but if you could mix some facts and evidence into your >> posting that would be nice. > > I have the impression that you frequently read something into TFLB that > simply is not there, or you overlook something that > is there. Not like Herman, who knows pretty > well what the intent of TFLB is. Herman just happens to disagree with > TFLB > on a few topics, which is fine. I thus have the impression > that most of your TD knowledge is from self study. Which is allowed by > the ACBL. > Self study is still better than simply making up rulings, but it > is not the equivalent of an actual decent multi-day TD course given > by an experienced director. > > No, I do not intent this as an insult. But is it relevant to anything? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 5 00:37:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:37:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1186430757.715715.1301905616000.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >..... >So, does the ABF require pairs playing brown sticker methods to always >have two sets of CCs with them, one for the brown sticker system, and one >for their non-brown sticker system? Richard Hills: In the very large ABF Swiss Teams event, the South West Pacific Teams, for matches 4 to 14 a pair is permitted to play a Yellow (Highly Unusual Method) system IF AND ONLY IF their team is currently ranked in the top third of the field. So yes, such super-scientific pairs would be required to maintain two sets of System Cards. The complete ABF Regulations (except for event-specific regs) are found at http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html ABF System Regulation, Clause 3.9: A "Protected Pair" is a pair where both players are below the status of National Master, or one player is below the status of Local Master, and which chooses to play a Green System without the use of any Brown Sticker conventions throughout an event or stage of an event. To claim "Protected Pair" status, the pair must display on the front of their Systems Card a green sticker (which designates they are playing a Green System), together with an orange sticker (which designates their claim for protection against Yellow Systems and Brown Sticker conventions/treatments). Such pairs must confirm with the Tournament Director prior to the start of the event or session that their system is Green and Non-BS, after which the Director will supply the relevant stickers. In events or sessions where the Regulations allow pairs to claim "Protected Pair" status, such a pair will be required to inform their opponents before the start of each round of their "Protected" status. The opposing pair must then not employ their Yellow methods nor any Brown Sticker convention or treatment during the round in question. Richard Hills: The Canberra Bridge Club does of course abide by the ABF System Reg. But within the ABF framework the CBC has its own event-specific regs. For its walk-in matchpoint pairs sessions, which are almost exclusively populated by Little Old Ladies, the CBC prohibits use of BSCs, hence for those events only one set of System Cards is required. For its Tuesday and Thursday night imp sessions, which are almost exclusively populated by semi-experts, experts and National Champions, the CBC prohibits use of Orange Stickers, hence for those events only one set of System Cards is required. Only for Tuesday and Thursday night matchpoint pairs sessions, which are almost non-existent, are Orange Stickers theoretically possible, but in practice never seen. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 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 Apr 5 03:04:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:04:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> Message-ID: >>I don't think Argentina made the 1964 Olympiad, perhaps >>you are thinking of soccer. My memory is not too good >>either, >considering that the Olympiad is free entry, it is not >logical to think Argentina did not make it. No way is an Olympiad free entry. Considering travel and accommodation costs, many nations affiliated to the WBF could not afford to send an Open Team to the 1964 New York Olympiad. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Apr 5 09:19:34 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:19:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> References: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> <201104040728.p347SEqf023871@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201104050720.p357KGZO001205@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:53 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > > > > > > > At 05:17 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>> > >>> (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the > >>> organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. The answer > >>> was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." > >>> > >> > >> I had heard this story before, but I remember it as Argentina vs > >> Australia. Are you certain about Brazil? > >> > > I don't think Argentina made the 1964 Olympiad, perhaps > > you are thinking of soccer. My memory is not too good > > either, > > > >considering that the Olympiad is free entry, it is not logical to think >Argentina did not make it. And why do you think soccer players need to >talk Hungarian? > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) I've looked it up. Definitely vs Brazil 1964 Olympiad. Tim Seres partnered Roelof Smilde, and Chagas and Branco? were the opponents. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 5 10:01:53 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:01:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201104050720.p357KGZO001205@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> <201104040728.p347SEqf023871@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> <201104050720.p357KGZO001205@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D9ACC71.3070306@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/04/2011 9:19, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 05:53 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> >>> >>> At 05:17 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >>>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>>> (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the >>>>> organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. The answer >>>>> was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." >>>>> >>>> I had heard this story before, but I remember it as Argentina vs >>>> Australia. Are you certain about Brazil? >>>> >>> I don't think Argentina made the 1964 Olympiad, perhaps >>> you are thinking of soccer. My memory is not too good >>> either, >>> >> considering that the Olympiad is free entry, it is not logical to think >> Argentina did not make it. And why do you think soccer players need to >> talk Hungarian? >> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Tony (Sydney) > I've looked it up. Definitely vs Brazil 1964 Olympiad. Tim Seres > partnered Roelof Smilde, and Chagas and Branco? were > the opponents. So you tell us that these four speak Hungarian. Do you have some information about their personal / familial history that would explain this, or was it a joke ? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 10:18:04 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:18:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D9ACC71.3070306@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D99708A.1020301@skynet.be> <201104040728.p347SEqf023871@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D9978FF.6090507@skynet.be> <201104050720.p357KGZO001205@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D9ACC71.3070306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2011/4/5 Alain Gottcheiner : > Le 5/04/2011 9:19, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >> At 05:53 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >>> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> At 05:17 PM 4/04/2011, you wrote: >>>>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>>>> (1) At the 1964 Olympiad in a match between Australia and Brazil the >>>>>> organisers asked if the players required an interpreter. ?The answer >>>>>> was, "No, we all speak Hungarian." >>>>>> >>>>> I had heard this story before, but I remember it as Argentina vs >>>>> Australia. Are you certain about Brazil? >>>>> >>>> I don't think Argentina made the 1964 Olympiad, perhaps >>>> you are thinking of soccer. ?My memory is not too good >>>> either, >>>> >>> considering that the Olympiad is free entry, it is not logical to think >>> Argentina did not make it. And why do you think soccer players need to >>> talk Hungarian? >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Tony (Sydney) >> I've looked it up. ?Definitely vs Brazil 1964 Olympiad. ?Tim Seres >> partnered Roelof Smilde, and Chagas and Branco? were >> the opponents. > So you tell us that these four speak Hungarian. Do you have some > information about their personal / familial history that would explain > this, or was it a joke ? Tim Seres was born i Hungary, so it's not very strange that he spoke his native language. I don't know about Smilde, but I guess he was Hungarian by birth too. Gabriel Chagas speaks a bucketful of languages (among them Norwegian). Hungarian is most probably one of them. But it couldn't be in 1964, since Chagas didn't play for Brazil on that occasion, according to the WBF website. It coulld have been in 1968 though. Not sure who Chagas partnered though. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 7 01:22:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:22:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Carol Tavris & Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), p 41: "When you enter the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, you find yourself in a room of interactive exhibits designed to identify the people you can't tolerate. The familiar targets are there (blacks, women, Jews, gays), but also short people, fat people, blond-female people, disabled people, ... You watch a video on the vast variety of prejudices, designed to convince you that everyone has at least a few, and then you are invited to enter the museum proper through one of two doors: one marked PREJUDICED, the other marked UNPREJUDICED. The latter door is locked, in case anyone misses the point, but occasionally some people do." Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions." Robert Frick: >>>Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table >>>rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do >>>not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was >>>really correct (even if it was correct). >>> >>>Here there was no infraction. Right? Richard Hills: >>Wrong. An obvious infraction of Law 10A. Robert Frick: >Wrong. The short answer is that L10A refers to rectifications, and >those (read the definitions) only follow irregularities. And there was >no irregularity. Richard Hills: I admit that I am prejudiced against several blmlers, for example Steve Willner (for whom I deem Ivory Tower tendencies, notably for preferring Law changes recommended by Jeff Rubens which would legalise some forms of UI -- these are wonderful in theory but in practice would increase a disadvantage ethical players have vis-a-vis unethical players), Nigel Guthrie (for him assuming that the Drafting Committee designed an unnecessarily complicated Lawbook in order to benefit their friends, high-level Directors) and Grattan Endicott (for always being right). And of course many blmlers are prejudiced against Robert Frick for many obvious reasons, hence me automatically in my pride assuming that Bob was wrong above. But Bob was right; Law 10A does not prohibit players giving a ruling about a non-infraction. Rather, such a prohibition is inconveniently located at the other end of the Lawbook, in Law 81: "...The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament...The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws...to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder...to adjust disputes..." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110406/a2fabe67/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 7 05:14:18 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:14:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:22:39 -0400, wrote: > ...Law 10A does not prohibit players > giving a ruling about a non-infraction. Rather, such a prohibition is > inconveniently located at the other end of the Lawbook, in Law 81: > > "...The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of > the tournament...The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws...to > administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their > rights and responsibilities thereunder...to adjust disputes..." > > Interesting. But it is not a natural language usage. The relevant section begins "The Director's duties and power normally include also the following:" I have a duty to pay taxes and the power to drive a car; saying that does not exclude anyone else from doing those. I am not sure you would always want to give this law that interpretation. For example, does the director's duty/responsibility to "ensure the orderly progress of the game" prohibit players from trying to correct errors in the movement? Or, I would actually not say that I administer L7A; I leave that up to the players. In computer programming, if a section of code is making a mistake, and you fix the code to stop that mistake, you have to make sure that the code still works for the things it used to do right. I think it is the same for laws. From lali808 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 05:23:50 2011 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:23:50 -1000 Subject: [BLML] preventing an irregularity Message-ID: Is there a limit as to the number of times a dummy can tell declarer the right side to lead from to prevent an irregularity? A WBF director told me there wasn't but at a local regional, a big name pro told our director that the dummy could remind the declarer only once but after that, he must let the error occur thus allowing the ops to choose the hand that leads. I have also been told that there is sometimes a difference between ACBL land and the rest of the world. Can people comment on this for me please? Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110407/abc02f1f/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Apr 7 06:20:32 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 06:20:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] preventing an irregularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153060533.684963.1302150032036.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Lali wrote: > Is there a limit as to the number of times a dummy can tell declarer the > right side to lead from to prevent an irregularity? A WBF director told me > there wasn't but at a local regional, a big name pro told our director that > the dummy could remind the declarer only once but after that, he must let > the error occur thus allowing the ops to choose the hand that leads. I > have also been told that there is sometimes a difference between ACBL land and > the rest of the world. Can people comment on this for me please? Thanks! Ask them to tell you the number of the law upon which they base this statement. *teehee* Once they have admitted that they cannot give such a number, point them to L42. B. Qualified Rights Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations stated in Law 43. 1. Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led. [...] Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 7 06:49:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:49:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] preventing an irregularity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lali: >>Is there a limit as to the number of times a dummy can tell declarer >>the right side to lead from to prevent an irregularity?? A WBF director >>told me there wasn't but at a local regional, a big name pro told our >>director that the dummy could remind the declarer only once but after >>that, he must let the error occur thus allowing the ops to choose the >>hand that leads. Thomas: >Ask them to tell you the number of the law upon which they base this >statement. *teehee* Richard: A lot of big name pros have no idea what they are talking about. So an Aussie big name pro, Ron Klinger, has misinterpreted Law 73C as meaning that he should make the call that he always would have made had his pard's hesitation not occurred. In this case the ACBL big name pro seems to have confused Law 20C2, which grants a right which exists only at one's first turn to play, with the repeatable right defined by the second sentence of Law 9A3: "However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player's committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)." Lali: >>I have also been told that there is sometimes a difference between ACBL >>land and the rest of the world.? Can people comment on this for me >>please?? Thanks! Richard: Culturally EBU land places an excessive emphasis on matchpoints. Culturally ABF land places an excessive emphasis on imps. Culturally ACBLland places an excessive emphasis on "winning". Of course, tossing a coin 100 times and calling "Heads!" each time may well give one 100 wins -- whenever one is tossing a double-headed coin -- but how meaningful are those "wins" going to be? Just as the best scientific theory is NOT one which cannot be falsified, but rather the theory which can be refined or superseded as new facts are discovered, so the best bridge opponent is NOT one who we will always "win" against, but rather one who provides an equal contest. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 7 08:42:25 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:42:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Mikado, the Mikado: "I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances." Extracts from Law 81: "...The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament...The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws...to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder...to adjust disputes..." Robert Frick: >Interesting. > >But it is not a natural language usage. The relevant section begins >"The Director's duties and power normally include also the following:" [snip] Richard Hills: The Frick phrase "relevant section" is misleading, since the limiting caveat "normally" applies only to the Director's Law 81C powers. Without any caveat are the Director's powers under Law 81B1, "The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament..." and Law 81B2, "The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws...". Plus the word "normally" means that the default authority under Law 81C is the Director. It definitely does not mean that the players may now routinely usurp the Director's authority. Rather, the word "normally" means that the Regulating Authority / Tournament Organiser may perhaps exceptionally strip the Director of some Law 81C powers by regulation. For example, for last January's Summer Festival of Bridge the ABF had created a Tournament Committee, transferring to it what was "normally" the Director's Law 81C2 power to interpret the Law 78D Conditions of Contest. Robert Frick: >For example, does the director's duty/responsibility to "ensure the >orderly progress of the game" prohibit players from trying to correct >errors in the movement? [snip] Richard Hills: A very good example. Last Tuesday the Director announced at the start of play that we had 13 & 1/2 tables, hence we would be playing 13 x 2 board rounds with a skip after round seven. Come round seven and the Director forgot to announce the skip. Did I correct this error by routinely usurping the Director's authority and announcing the skip myself? No. I merely approached the Director and enquired why he had forgotten to announce the skip. He replied that a pair had forgotten to turn up, hence we had 13 tables with no skip necessary. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 7 09:07:49 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:07:49 +1000 Subject: [BLML] preventing an irregularity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201104070708.p3778evS013961@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:49 PM 7/04/2011, you wrote: >Lali: > > >>Is there a limit as to the number of times a dummy can tell declarer > >>the right side to lead from to prevent an irregularity? A WBF director > >>told me there wasn't but at a local regional, a big name pro told our > >>director that the dummy could remind the declarer only once but after > >>that, he must let the error occur thus allowing the ops to choose the > >>hand that leads. > >Thomas: > > >Ask them to tell you the number of the law upon which they base this > >statement. *teehee* > >Richard: > >A lot of big name pros have no idea what they are talking about. So an >Aussie big name pro, Ron Klinger, has misinterpreted Law 73C as meaning >that he should make the call that he always would have made had his >pard's hesitation not occurred. cut the rest. In fairness to the big name pro, almost the entire bridge community believes this to be the case, since they will always start their defence with "I would always bid in this situation..", or "I was always going to bid x or y". I think the ACBL might have actually recommended this incorrect approach at one time. One who was originally of the wrong impression until I learnt from Richard that L73C is the most important law in the book Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 7 09:14:20 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 17:14:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] preventing an irregularity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201104070708.p3778evS013961@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: ..... One who was originally of the wrong impression until I learnt from Richard that L73C is the most important law in the book Cheers, Tony (Sydney) The Most Important Law in the Book: "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." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 7 18:02:07 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:02:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:42:25 -0400, wrote: > The Mikado, the Mikado: > > "I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and > virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances." > > Extracts from Law 81: > > "...The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of > the tournament...The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws...to > administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their > rights and responsibilities thereunder...to adjust disputes..." > > Robert Frick: > >> Interesting. >> >> But it is not a natural language usage. The relevant section begins >> "The Director's duties and power normally include also the following:" > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > The Frick phrase "relevant section" is misleading, since the limiting > caveat "normally" applies only to the Director's Law 81C powers. > > Without any caveat are the Director's powers under Law 81B1, "The > Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the > tournament..." and Law 81B2, "The Director applies, and is bound by, > these Laws...". > > Plus the word "normally" means that the default authority under Law 81C > is the Director. It definitely does not mean that the players may now > routinely usurp the Director's authority. Rather, the word "normally" > means that the Regulating Authority / Tournament Organiser may perhaps > exceptionally strip the Director of some Law 81C powers by regulation. > > For example, for last January's Summer Festival of Bridge the ABF had > created a Tournament Committee, transferring to it what was "normally" > the Director's Law 81C2 power to interpret the Law 78D Conditions of > Contest. Sorry, you are misunderstanding. And we get to do real logic Premise: I have a duty (or power or both) to administer and interpret the laws (L81C2). True conclusion that does not follow from this premise: I am the only one with the power and duty to administer and interpret the laws. We know that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, because logic just depends on form and the conclusion isn't true in this one: True premise: I have a duty to ensure that my daughter attends school. Conclusion that does not follow from this premise: I am the only one with a right to ensure that she attends school. (My wife also has this duty and power.) This is just natural language use. If the lawmakers meant that the director was the only one with these duties and responsibilities, they would have said so. Or should have said so. No one would, outside the context of this discussion, read L81C as giving exclusive rights to director. Right? > > Robert Frick: > >> For example, does the director's duty/responsibility to "ensure the >> orderly progress of the game" prohibit players from trying to correct >> errors in the movement? > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > A very good example. Last Tuesday the Director announced at the start > of play that we had 13 & 1/2 tables, hence we would be playing 13 x 2 > board rounds with a skip after round seven. Come round seven and the > Director forgot to announce the skip. Did I correct this error by > routinely usurping the Director's authority and announcing the skip > myself? No. I merely approached the Director and enquired why he had > forgotten to announce the skip. He replied that a pair had forgotten > to turn up, hence we had 13 tables with no skip necessary. :-) :-) We can do logic again! The question is whether the rules prohibit players from trying to correct errors in the movement. One example where they should not doesn't help that much for showing that they *never* should. In fact, last night I told players to move to the next table. When I was apparently brought the wrong boards, I tried to get the right boards, and when I discovered that Table 1 started the night with Boards 4-6, I changed the movement in the computer without first asking the director. Let's see, I also pointed out as they were starting that Table 5 was completely empty (in a 9-table game). So I took major responsibility for making the movement work correctly. Of course the final responsibility was the director's, but it never crossed my mind that I might be prohibited from helping. From blml at arcor.de Thu Apr 7 18:56:00 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:56:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:42:25 -0400, wrote: > > > The Mikado, the Mikado: > > > > "I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and > > virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances." > > > > Extracts from Law 81: > > > > "...The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of > > the tournament...The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws...to > > administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their > > rights and responsibilities thereunder...to adjust disputes..." > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> Interesting. > >> > >> But it is not a natural language usage. The relevant section begins > >> "The Director's duties and power normally include also the following:" > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > The Frick phrase "relevant section" is misleading, since the limiting > > caveat "normally" applies only to the Director's Law 81C powers. > > > > Without any caveat are the Director's powers under Law 81B1, "The > > Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the > > tournament..." and Law 81B2, "The Director applies, and is bound by, > > these Laws...". > > > > Plus the word "normally" means that the default authority under Law 81C > > is the Director. It definitely does not mean that the players may now > > routinely usurp the Director's authority. Rather, the word "normally" > > means that the Regulating Authority / Tournament Organiser may perhaps > > exceptionally strip the Director of some Law 81C powers by regulation. > > > > For example, for last January's Summer Festival of Bridge the ABF had > > created a Tournament Committee, transferring to it what was "normally" > > the Director's Law 81C2 power to interpret the Law 78D Conditions of > > Contest. > > Sorry, you are misunderstanding. And we get to do real logic > > > Premise: I have a duty (or power or both) to administer and interpret the > laws (L81C2). > True conclusion that does not follow from this premise: I am the only one > with the power and duty to administer and interpret the laws. > > We know that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, because > logic just depends on form and the conclusion isn't true in this one: > > True premise: I have a duty to ensure that my daughter attends school. > Conclusion that does not follow from this premise: I am the only one with > a right to ensure that she attends school. > > (My wife also has this duty and power.) > > > This is just natural language use. If the lawmakers meant that the > director was the only one with these duties and responsibilities, they > would have said so. Or should have said so. No one would, outside the > context of this discussion, read L81C as giving exclusive rights to > director. Right? No, not right. First of all, the director is not the only one who has such powers, there are also the ACs. L93 B3 In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.) So it simply is not true that the director has such rights exclusively. Secondly, any law that tries to be readable rather than amass 5,000 pages of legalese even lawyers cannot fully comprehend has to work by logic to a significant extent, rather than by specifying every little thing and every individual scenario until the last dots on is have been polished and are shining. Nowhere in TFLB is there any indication that players are allowed to make their own rulings. So they are not allowed to do that. It is self evident and totally logical that players are not allowed to make their own rulings. Sure, the wording in L10A, L81C and L82 might be modified to make it even clearer than it already is. But it already clear. Using the same argumentation you use, a player would be able to call "Ultimo" and "Ben Gurion", because L35 - Inadmissible calls does not state that "Ultimo" and "Ben Gurion" are not admissible calls. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 7 19:53:27 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:53:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:56:00 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:42:25 -0400, wrote: >> >> > The Mikado, the Mikado: >> > >> > "I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and >> > virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances." >> > >> > Extracts from Law 81: >> > >> > "...The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management >> of >> > the tournament...The Director applies, and is bound by, these >> Laws...to >> > administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their >> > rights and responsibilities thereunder...to adjust disputes..." >> > >> > Robert Frick: >> > >> >> Interesting. >> >> >> >> But it is not a natural language usage. The relevant section begins >> >> "The Director's duties and power normally include also the >> following:" >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> > Richard Hills: >> > >> > The Frick phrase "relevant section" is misleading, since the limiting >> > caveat "normally" applies only to the Director's Law 81C powers. >> > >> > Without any caveat are the Director's powers under Law 81B1, "The >> > Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the >> > tournament..." and Law 81B2, "The Director applies, and is bound by, >> > these Laws...". >> > >> > Plus the word "normally" means that the default authority under Law >> 81C >> > is the Director. It definitely does not mean that the players may now >> > routinely usurp the Director's authority. Rather, the word "normally" >> > means that the Regulating Authority / Tournament Organiser may perhaps >> > exceptionally strip the Director of some Law 81C powers by regulation. >> > >> > For example, for last January's Summer Festival of Bridge the ABF had >> > created a Tournament Committee, transferring to it what was "normally" >> > the Director's Law 81C2 power to interpret the Law 78D Conditions of >> > Contest. >> >> Sorry, you are misunderstanding. And we get to do real logic >> >> >> Premise: I have a duty (or power or both) to administer and interpret >> the >> laws (L81C2). >> True conclusion that does not follow from this premise: I am the only >> one >> with the power and duty to administer and interpret the laws. >> >> We know that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, because >> logic just depends on form and the conclusion isn't true in this one: >> >> True premise: I have a duty to ensure that my daughter attends school. >> Conclusion that does not follow from this premise: I am the only one >> with >> a right to ensure that she attends school. >> >> (My wife also has this duty and power.) >> >> >> This is just natural language use. If the lawmakers meant that the >> director was the only one with these duties and responsibilities, they >> would have said so. Or should have said so. No one would, outside the >> context of this discussion, read L81C as giving exclusive rights to >> director. Right? > > No, not right. > > First of all, the director is not the only one who has such powers, > there are also the ACs. > > L93 B3 > In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned > by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule > the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise > of > his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the > Director in charge that he change such a ruling.) > > So it simply is not true that the director has such rights exclusively. So we agree on that. > > > Secondly, any law that tries to be readable rather than amass 5,000 pages > of legalese even lawyers cannot fully comprehend has to work > by logic to a significant extent, rather than by specifying every little > thing and every individual scenario until the last dots on is have > been polished and are shining. > > Nowhere in TFLB is there any indication that players are allowed > to make their own rulings. So they are not allowed to do that. The problem, is we allow players to do a number of things that are not in the laws. So we don't want a general law that anything not in the laws is an infraction. Such as saying hi, pointing out irregularities in the movement, reminding the director that there is a skip. > It is self evident and totally logical that players are not allowed > to make their own rulings. Sure, the wording in L10A, L81C > and L82 might be modified to make it even clearer than it > already is. But it already clear. I am not sure if we are disagreeing here. Everyone knows that players cannot make table rulings. So things work fine whether or not it is actually in the lawbook. There was no real practical need for care in writing Law 10. > > > Using the same argumentation you use, a player would be > able to call "Ultimo" and "Ben Gurion", because L35 - Inadmissible > calls does not state that "Ultimo" and "Ben Gurion" are > not admissible calls. I am not sure what you are saying here, because players can make inadmissible calls (insufficient bids, doubles of partner's double). The law then deals with the irregularity. These aren't calls, they are extraneous information. I once had a player pull a pass card out of her purse and it said (on the back) Oh Shit. I had a player pull out the stop card and ask the opponents to stop talking and start the next hand. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Apr 7 19:57:15 2011 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:57:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D9DFAFB.5010506@t-online.de> Am 07.04.2011 18:56, schrieb Thomas Dehn: > > Using the same argumentation you use, a player would be > able to call "Ultimo" and "Ben Gurion", because L35 - Inadmissible > calls does not state that "Ultimo" and "Ben Gurion" are > not admissible calls. Not in Bridge, no, but in Yiddish Poker they are, and winning calls, to boot. I wonder who else has read Ephraim Kishon (or Ferenc Kishont, as he was named before emigrating to Israel). Matthias > > > > Thomas > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 8 00:57:45 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 08:57:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Pride and Prejudice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D9DFAFB.5010506@t-online.de> Message-ID: President Nixon speaking at the funeral of President Pompidou: "This is a great day for France." Thomas Dehn: >>Using the same argumentation you [Robert Frick] use, a player >>would be able to call "Ultimo" and "Ben Gurion", because L35 - >>Inadmissible Calls does not state that "Ultimo" and "Ben >>Gurion" are not admissible calls. Matthias Berghaus: >Not in Bridge, no, but in Yiddish Poker they are, and winning >calls, to boot. > >I wonder who else has read Ephraim Kishon (or Ferenc Kishont, >as he was named before emigrating to Israel). Richard Hills: I have not yet had that pleasure. But Marvin French, Herman De Wael and myself have read many fiction and non-fiction works by another Jewish polymath, Isaac Asimov. In Asimov's science fiction book "Foundation"(1) the Actionist party are reminiscent of Robert Frick in their dogmatic idea of direct action to solve a Seldon crisis. Luckily the incumbent Mayor, Salvor Hardin, has the motto "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", so Hardin therefore chooses a subtler interpretation which more easily and more certainly resolves the Seldon crisis. "Dogmatic interpretation of the Lawbook is the last refuge of the incompetent." Best wishes Richard Hills (1) The original Foundation trilogy, which in reading order are: Foundation Foundation and Empire Second Foundation are well worth reading. Later Foundation books were written after a gap of some decades, so unfortunately are somewhat diminished in quality. In his autobiography, Isaac Asimov relates how he was attending the traditional costume party of a science fiction convention. Two young men and one young woman, all wearing neck-to-ankle cloaks, announced that they would give a visual representation of the Foundation trilogy. When they opened their cloaks, the two young men were wearing nothing but underpants (Foundation and Second Foundation), while the young woman was wearing a bikini (Foundation and Empire). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 8 19:46:50 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:46:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L63B7 (and 2) In-Reply-To: <4D9DFAFB.5010506@t-online.de> References: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4D9DFAFB.5010506@t-online.de> Message-ID: I am still thinking about Thomas's comment. Suppose declarer is going to make 9 tricks, there is a revoke by defense which is not established, but the penalty card costs the defense a trick, then declarer revokes and it is established. Declarer has made 10 tricks. Do you adjust for the revoke? I may be the only one who thinks this ruling is not obvious. Maybe if I took a class on directing they would have discussed this. All I have to go on is the lawbook. The lawbook seems clear that this is 10 tricks for declarer. But this is kind of a loopy ruling. It is reasonable, at least to me, that the lawmakers did not intend to say what they said and it is just one more carelessly written law. But how do I know? And if the lawmakers didn't intend to have this ruling, people still might be following the lawbook. Or they might all be ignoring it. I would have no way of knowing. From svenpran at online.no Fri Apr 8 20:37:05 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 20:37:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L63B7 (and 2) In-Reply-To: References: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4D9DFAFB.5010506@t-online.de> Message-ID: <001c01cbf61b$f653fb80$e2fbf280$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > I am still thinking about Thomas's comment. Suppose declarer is > going to make 9 tricks, there is a revoke by defense which is > not established, but the penalty card costs the defense a trick, > then declarer revokes and it is established. Declarer has made > 10 tricks. Do you adjust for the revoke? If there had been two (established) revokes, one by each side, then we have a WBFLC minute stating that the director shall ignore both revokes, use Law 64C and award an assigned adjusted score that provides equity to both sides (from the situation just before the first revoke). Her we have first a penalty card situation resulting in a specified rectification and then an established revoke. These are two separate irregularities each resulting in its own rectification so, YES the rectification for the established revoke (Law 64A) shall eventually be applied when play is completed. The final result on the board will be 8, 9 or 10 tricks depending on which of the conditions in law 64A or possibly Law 64B1 is satisfied. > I may be the only one who thinks this ruling is not obvious. Maybe if I > took a class on directing they would have discussed this. All I have to > go > on is the lawbook. > > The lawbook seems clear that this is 10 tricks for declarer. But this > is > kind of a loopy ruling. It is reasonable, at least to me, that the > lawmakers did not intend to say what they said and it is just one more > carelessly written law. But how do I know? And if the lawmakers didn't > intend to have this ruling, people still might be following the > lawbook. > Or they might all be ignoring it. I would have no way of knowing. The laws are plain and straight forward in cases like this. From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Apr 8 20:39:36 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 20:39:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L63B7_=28and_2=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1Q8Gam-0Vkb7w0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > I am still thinking about Thomas's comment. Suppose declarer is going > to make 9 tricks, there is a revoke by defense which is not > established, but the penalty card costs the defense a trick, then > declarer revokes and it is established. Declarer has made 10 tricks. > Do you adjust for the revoke? I do not adjust the score. I apply Law 64 A1/2 and give 1/2 tricks to the defenders ==> 9/8 tricks for declarer. > I may be the only one who thinks this ruling is not obvious. Maybe if > I took a class on directing they would have discussed this. All I have > to go on is the lawbook. > > The lawbook seems clear that this is 10 tricks for declarer. not in my lawbook. Law 64 (!) B7 only applies to establishes revokes and due to your own story the defender's revoke was not established. > But this > is kind of a loopy ruling. It is reasonable, at least to me, that the > lawmakers did not intend to say what they said and it is just one more > carelessly written law. But how do I know? And if the lawmakers didn't > intend to have this ruling, people still might be following the > lawbook. > Or they might all be ignoring it. I would have no way of knowing. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 9 17:42:11 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:42:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L63B7 (and 2) In-Reply-To: <1Q8Gam-0Vkb7w0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Q8Gam-0Vkb7w0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:39:36 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Robert Frick" >> I am still thinking about Thomas's comment. Suppose declarer is going >> to make 9 tricks, there is a revoke by defense which is not >> established, but the penalty card costs the defense a trick, then >> declarer revokes and it is established. Declarer has made 10 tricks. >> Do you adjust for the revoke? > > I do not adjust the score. I apply Law 64 A1/2 and give > 1/2 tricks to the defenders ==> 9/8 tricks for declarer. > >> I may be the only one who thinks this ruling is not obvious. Maybe if >> I took a class on directing they would have discussed this. All I have >> to go on is the lawbook. >> >> The lawbook seems clear that this is 10 tricks for declarer. > > not in my lawbook. > Law 64 (!) B7 only applies to establishes revokes and > due to your own story the defender's revoke was not > established. But, when I am sitting in New York just reading the lawbook, how do I know that I am supposed to interpret "revoke" as not meaning 'revoke'? And what makes you think that "revoke" should be interpreted as "established revoke" instead of "revoke"? I know enough about the laws now to realize that they were not written carefully and sometimes you have to read them as saying something different from what they actually say. Here, I am pretty sure the the lawmaker just made a careless mistake. But there other situations where I am not sure. And even if it is just a careless mistake, other directors might have decided to follow what the rule book says and then I might be the only one not following this law as it is written? (I am guessing that is what happened to L27D, though I don't know.) > >> But this >> is kind of a loopy ruling. It is reasonable, at least to me, that the >> lawmakers did not intend to say what they said and it is just one more >> carelessly written law. But how do I know? And if the lawmakers didn't >> intend to have this ruling, people still might be following the >> lawbook. >> Or they might all be ignoring it. I would have no way of knowing. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 9 17:44:55 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:44:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L63B7 (and 2) In-Reply-To: <001c01cbf61b$f653fb80$e2fbf280$@no> References: <1350521467.292052.1302195360634.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4D9DFAFB.5010506@t-online.de> <001c01cbf61b$f653fb80$e2fbf280$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:37:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> I am still thinking about Thomas's comment. Suppose declarer is >> going to make 9 tricks, there is a revoke by defense which is >> not established, but the penalty card costs the defense a trick, >> then declarer revokes and it is established. Declarer has made >> 10 tricks. Do you adjust for the revoke? > > If there had been two (established) revokes, one by each side, then we > have > a WBFLC minute stating that the director shall ignore both revokes, use > Law > 64C and award an assigned adjusted score that provides equity to both > sides > (from the situation just before the first revoke). > > Her we have first a penalty card situation The "penalty card situation" was caused by a revoke. Nothing changes the fact that two revokes occurred in this example. resulting in a specified > rectification and then an established revoke. These are two separate > irregularities each resulting in its own rectification so, YES the > rectification for the established revoke (Law 64A) shall eventually be > applied when play is completed. > > The final result on the board will be 8, 9 or 10 tricks depending on > which > of the conditions in law 64A or possibly Law 64B1 is satisfied. > >> I may be the only one who thinks this ruling is not obvious. Maybe if I >> took a class on directing they would have discussed this. All I have to >> go >> on is the lawbook. >> >> The lawbook seems clear that this is 10 tricks for declarer. But this >> is >> kind of a loopy ruling. It is reasonable, at least to me, that the >> lawmakers did not intend to say what they said and it is just one more >> carelessly written law. But how do I know? And if the lawmakers didn't >> intend to have this ruling, people still might be following the >> lawbook. >> Or they might all be ignoring it. I would have no way of knowing. > > The laws are plain and straight forward in cases like this. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Apr 9 20:27:39 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 20:27:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L63B7 (and 2) In-Reply-To: References: <1Q8Gam-0Vkb7w0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000401cbf6e3$cf0dac60$6d290520$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............... > But, when I am sitting in New York just reading the lawbook, > how do I know that I am supposed to interpret "revoke" as not > meaning 'revoke'? And what makes you think that "revoke" should > be interpreted as "established revoke" instead of "revoke"? The headings and the first few text lines in each of laws 63 and 64. > I know enough about the laws now to realize that they were not written > carefully and sometimes you have to read them as saying something > different from what they actually say. Here, I am pretty sure the the > lawmaker just made a careless mistake. No, I assume the only thing the lawmakers did was to expect the readers to remember the first part of a law when they read the remainder; IMHO a very reasonable expectation? Unless you have forgotten the first part of these laws when you come to Law 64B7 you will be fully aware that Law 64B7 cannot apply unless both revokes have been established. From petereidt at t-online.de Sat Apr 9 20:42:08 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 20:42:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?L63B7_=28and_2=29?= In-Reply-To: <000401cbf6e3$cf0dac60$6d290520$@no> References: <000401cbf6e3$cf0dac60$6d290520$@no> Message-ID: <1Q8d6m-0QdGgi0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Sven, what Robert wants us to believe, is IMO the following: Law 64 B starts with "There is no rectification [...] following _an_ established revoke:" and ends with "7. when both sides have revoked in the same board." So, Robert, wants us to believe that B7 also applies when there is only one established revoke plus one not-established revoke by the other side. Not that he will succeed in convincing us ;-( From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............... > > But, when I am sitting in New York just reading the lawbook, > > how do I know that I am supposed to interpret "revoke" as not > > meaning 'revoke'? And what makes you think that "revoke" should > > be interpreted as "established revoke" instead of "revoke"? > > The headings and the first few text lines in each of laws 63 and 64. > > > I know enough about the laws now to realize that they were not > > written carefully and sometimes you have to read them as saying > > something different from what they actually say. Here, I am pretty > > sure the the lawmaker just made a careless mistake. > > > > No, I assume the only thing the lawmakers did was to expect the > readers to remember the first part of a law when they read the > remainder; IMHO a very reasonable expectation? > > Unless you have forgotten the first part of these laws when you come > to Law 64B7 you will be fully aware that Law 64B7 cannot apply unless > both revokes have been established. From madam at civilradio.hu Mon Apr 11 13:15:59 2011 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:15:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem Message-ID: Hi all, You're called to a table, and the bidding has gone, only EW bidding: (Team match, hand-dealt hands) E - W 1c-1s 2s-3d .3s-4s At this point, NS calls you, and tells there was a hesitation before the 3s bid, agreed by EW. I told them to continue play, and to call me back if they feel they were damaged. They call me back, since 4s was made, no mistake made by either side. I now ask West to show his hand, and he spread it: Kxxx xx AQTxx J9x I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by now of course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you find another c9 in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West hand of the previous board. West told me he had 13 during the bidding, he remembers bidding 4s because of the doubleton club, but at the end of the play, he had this c9, since he was trying to limit his club loosers to one, dummy having Axx. Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump into his hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? Adam Magyar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110411/1cf222c4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 11 13:45:54 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:45:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DA2E9F2.7060404@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/04/2011 13:15, Magyar ?d?m a ?crit : > > Hi all, > > You're called to a table, and the bidding has gone, only EW bidding: > > (Team match, hand-dealt hands) > > E - W > > 1c-1s > > 2s-3d > > ...3s-4s > > At this point, NS calls you, and tells there was a hesitation before > the 3s bid, agreed by EW. I told them to continue play, and to call me > back if they feel they were damaged. > > They call me back, since 4s was made, no mistake made by either side. > What a foursome ! Not even one wrong card in an entire deal ... > I now ask West to show his hand, and he spread it: > > Kxxx > > xx > > AQTxx > > J9x > > I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by > now of course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you > find another c9 in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West hand > of the previous board. West told me he had 13 during the bidding, he > remembers bidding 4s because of the doubleton club, but at the end of > the play, he had this c9, since he was trying to limit his club > loosers to one, dummy having Axx. > > Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump > into his hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? > AG : even though going to game with a 14th card would be tempting, substracting any card except a heart makes passing 3S a clear LA, especially after asking partner what he thought about bidding game (which suggests that one would accept his advice). AFAIC, partner could hold AJxx - Qxx - Kx - QTxx, making even 3S rather perilous. The extra C9 is deemed never to have pertained to the hand. Anyway, I correct the contract to 3S, making whatever it should make facing the 4252 hand. With or without C9, bidding 4S is far from obvious (and very possibly wrong). Thereafter, I'll have to consider the possibility that West discovered, during the auction, that he held 14 cards, and lost up his thought's thread. Or worse, that he thought that, by creating another problem on the board, he would draw the attention away from this one (fluffed it). So, I have some qualms about believing him as you ask me to do. The problem would be more interesting if West had held an extra Ace, which would make bidding 4S obvious. Now he might argue that he was slamming and stopped after partner's discouraging move. And we would have to take the very harsh decision that, since he didn't hold this card, he isn't allowed to bid 4S. Makes me fealing uneasy, but no choice. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110411/d2b52fb2/attachment.html From Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com Mon Apr 11 14:09:50 2011 From: Martin.Sinot at tridentmicro.com (Martin Sinot) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:09:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: According to 13F, that C9 can be complete ignored. It is not part of the hand, and only if it is played in a trick you have a problem (this is not so, since the card remained at the end of play). We therefore only need to look at the hesitation. My idea about this: West makes a game attempt. East rejected this. West should then respect his partner and pass. The doubleton club is not a valid argument; that was just as valid a round earlier, but then West decided to ask advice about playing game instead of bidding it himself. Usually when asking for advice, you are prepared to follow that advice. I would adjust to 3S+1. Regards -- Martin Sinot From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Magyar ?d?m Sent: Monday, 11 April, 2011 13:16 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] double problem Hi all, You're called to a table, and the bidding has gone, only EW bidding: (Team match, hand-dealt hands) E - W 1c-1s 2s-3d ...3s-4s At this point, NS calls you, and tells there was a hesitation before the 3s bid, agreed by EW. I told them to continue play, and to call me back if they feel they were damaged. They call me back, since 4s was made, no mistake made by either side. I now ask West to show his hand, and he spread it: Kxxx xx AQTxx J9x I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by now of course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you find another c9 in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West hand of the previous board. West told me he had 13 during the bidding, he remembers bidding 4s because of the doubleton club, but at the end of the play, he had this c9, since he was trying to limit his club loosers to one, dummy having Axx. Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump into his hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? Adam Magyar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110411/9bc7a73a/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 11 14:25:16 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:25:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <412754575.434769.1302524716112.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Magyar ?d?m wrote: > Hi all, > > > > You're called to a table, and the bidding has gone, only EW bidding: > > > > (Team match, hand-dealt hands) > > E - W > > 1c-1s > > 2s-3d > > .3s-4s > > > > At this point, NS calls you, and tells there was a hesitation before the 3s > bid, agreed by EW. I told them to continue play, and to call me back if > they > feel they were damaged. > > > > They call me back, since 4s was made, no mistake made by either side. > > > > I now ask West to show his hand, and he spread it: > > > > Kxxx > > xx > > AQTxx > > J9x > > > > I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by now of > course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you find another > c9 > in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West hand of the previous > board. West told me he had 13 during the bidding, he remembers bidding 4s > because of the doubleton club, but at the end of the play, he had this c9, > since he was trying to limit his club loosers to one, dummy having Axx. > > > > Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump into his > hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? > > > > Adam Magyar West is responsible for the number of cards he holds. With respect to the hesitation, in this auction there exist two possibilities: a) West was asking partner's opinion on whether a game should be bid. In this scenario, after the hesitation, passing 3S is a logical alternative, and as bidding game is deemed to be "demonstrably" suggested by the auction, the contract is adjusted to 3S whatever that makes. b) West had a hand that would always bid game. For example, his trial bid actually was a slam try, or an attempt to find the best game. In this scenario, the TD might easily rule that passing 3S was not a logical alternative. With W's actual hand, Kxxx xx AQTxx J(9)x I rule that passing 3S is a logical alternative. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 11 14:28:08 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:28:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001401cbf843$ea742a90$bf5c7fb0$@no> The relevant law is Law 13F: Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded. In my opinion TD should award an adjusted score if the surplus card has been played and he judges that the play of this card may have had an impact on the result favorable for the offending side. The table result should stand unless both these conditions are satisfied. Exactly how the extra C9 can have entered West?s hand is immaterial except for TD deciding whether he shall apply his power to impose a procedural penalty on West for failure to follow correct procedures. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Magyar ?d?m Sent: 11. april 2011 13:16 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] double problem Hi all, You?re called to a table, and the bidding has gone, only EW bidding: (Team match, hand-dealt hands) E - W 1c-1s 2s-3d 3s-4s At this point, NS calls you, and tells there was a hesitation before the 3s bid, agreed by EW. I told them to continue play, and to call me back if they feel they were damaged. They call me back, since 4s was made, no mistake made by either side. I now ask West to show his hand, and he spread it: Kxxx xx AQTxx J9x I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by now of course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you find another c9 in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West hand of the previous board. West told me he had 13 during the bidding, he remembers bidding 4s because of the doubleton club, but at the end of the play, he had this c9, since he was trying to limit his club loosers to one, dummy having Axx. Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump into his hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? Adam Magyar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110411/3b6a28b7/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 11 14:36:58 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:36:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> Sorry, I forgot the hesitation in my first answer. With a natural system East has shown an opening hand with 12-14 HCP and 4 card spade support. West has made a game invitation which East reluctantly refused. PASS is definitely a LA for West after the BIT so I agree with those adjusting to 3S +1 Again the question on the C9 is immaterial for the ruling. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Magyar ?d?m Sent: 11. april 2011 13:16 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] double problem Hi all, You?re called to a table, and the bidding has gone, only EW bidding: (Team match, hand-dealt hands) E - W 1c-1s 2s-3d 3s-4s At this point, NS calls you, and tells there was a hesitation before the 3s bid, agreed by EW. I told them to continue play, and to call me back if they feel they were damaged. They call me back, since 4s was made, no mistake made by either side. I now ask West to show his hand, and he spread it: Kxxx xx AQTxx J9x I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by now of course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you find another c9 in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West hand of the previous board. West told me he had 13 during the bidding, he remembers bidding 4s because of the doubleton club, but at the end of the play, he had this c9, since he was trying to limit his club loosers to one, dummy having Axx. Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump into his hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? Adam Magyar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110411/1e9d2b64/attachment-0001.html From gampas at aol.com Mon Apr 11 14:44:41 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:44:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> References: <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> Message-ID: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after the hesitation. From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 11 14:53:21 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:53:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> References: <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> Message-ID: <002d01cbf847$707c1e60$51745b20$@no> On Behalf Of PL > Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after the > hesitation. IMHO little or NO reason for that. You rectify by adjusting 4S= to 3S+1 and that's it. From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 11 14:59:54 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:59:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> References: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> Message-ID: <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> PL wrote: > Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after the > hesitation. I would not. Does not look like flagrant intentional use of UI to me. Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 11 16:41:32 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:41:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DA3131C.7040706@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/04/2011 14:59, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > PL wrote: >> Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after the >> hesitation. > I would not. Does not look like flagrant intentional use of UI to me. > Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. > > AG : OK, you would (I woiuldn't, but I'm influenced by the frequency of 3-card raises in my style). But this isn't the question. The question is : is 4S an obvious bid for those who thought it clever to bid 3D ? (the famous "peer" proviso) Notice that there should be a c) in your former post : 3D might have been bid in order to choose between 3NT and 4S, and in that case bidding 4S over 3S should have been allowed. Give West : Jxxx - Qx - AKJx - Kxx for example. Partner will bid 3S on AQxx-xx-xxx-AQxx (and you bid 4), but if he bids 3NT, on e.g. KQx-KJTx-x-AJxxx, you accept this. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 11 18:40:45 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:40:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <4DA3131C.7040706@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DA3131C.7040706@ulb.ac.be> <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2135198204.502468.1302540045385.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 11/04/2011 14:59, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > PL wrote: > >> Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after the > >> hesitation. > > I would not. Does not look like flagrant intentional use of UI to me. > > Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. > > > > > AG : OK, you would (I woiuldn't, but I'm influenced by the frequency of > 3-card raises in my style). Yes, that matters for the evaluation of the hand. > But this isn't the question. The question is : is 4S an obvious bid for > those who thought it clever to bid 3D ? (the famous "peer" proviso) That is the question for the UI ruling. But it should not the question for the PP/DP ruling. The mere fact that a player chose among logical alternatives one that was "demonstrably" suggested by the UI should not automatically draw a PP or DP in addition to the adjusted score. > Notice that there should be a c) in your former post : 3D might have > been bid in order to choose between 3NT and 4S, and in that case bidding > 4S over 3S should have been allowed. I *did* mention that under b) "For example, his trial bid actually was a slam try, or an attempt to find the best game." Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Apr 11 20:31:28 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:31:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> [Adam Magyar] Kxxx xx AQTxx Jx: 1C-1S-; 2S-3S?-; ?? [Paul] Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after the hesitation. [Thomas Dehn] I would not. Does not look like flagrant intentional use of UI to me. Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. [Nige1] Partner opened the bidding, raised spades directly, and you have 6-7 losers. The director should ask a group or the player?s pairs what they would do in the given auction, without a hesitation. If they have played Bridge before, they will bid 4S, like Thomas Dehn. 3D was probably an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had raised with 3-cards. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110411/09720a35/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Apr 11 22:41:40 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:41:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] [Bulk] Re: double problem In-Reply-To: <3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> References: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com><002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no><2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> Message-ID: [Adam Magyar] Kxxx xx AQTxx Jx: 1C-1S-; 2S-3S?-; ?? [Paul] Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after the hesitation. [Thomas Dehn] I would not. Does not look like flagrant intentional use of UI to me. Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. [Nige1] Partner opened the bidding, raised spades directly, and you have 6-7 losers. The director should ask a group or the player?s peers what they would do in the given auction but without a hesitation. If they have played Bridge before, they will bid 4S, like Thomas Dehn. 3D may have been an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had raised with 3-cards. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 12 08:13:15 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:13:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] double problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> Message-ID: Pard You 1C 1S 2S 3D 3S ? You legally hold (the 14th card of the club nine removed): Kxxx xx AQTxx Jx What call do you make? Thomas Dehn: >>Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. Nige1 Guthrie: >Partner opened the bidding, raised spades directly, and >you have 6-7 losers. The director should ask a group or >the player's peers what they would do in the given >auction, without a hesitation. If they have played >Bridge before, they will bid 4S, like Thomas Dehn. 3D >was probably an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had >raised with 3-cards. Richard Hills: I have played Bridge before, enough Bridge to notice that the original poster failed to mention the bidding system employed by East-West. If I was playing Acol I would have bid 4S over 2S. I am not worried about declaring a 4-3 fit with these very concentrated values. But if I was playing Standard American I would have chosen the 3D trial bid over 2S, then respected pard's signoff in 3S. In Standard American pard's 1C then 2S is consistent with pard holding a grotty balanced 13 hcp. But in Acol pard cannot hold a grotty balanced 13 hcp, since with that hand pard would have opened 1NT, not 1C. Best wishes Richard Hills "3D was probably an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had raised with 3-cards." Possibly, not probably. My class of player prefers an unambiguous 3NT pick-a-contract rebid; I have seen too many debacles after overly subtle bids which have multiple meanings (in particular many debacles after advance trial bids or advance cue bids for a not yet agreed or not yet mentioned denomination). The Mikado, the Mikado: "On a cloth untrue With a twisted cue And elliptical billiard balls!" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Apr 12 09:32:57 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:32:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] double problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1051358137.514972.1302593577785.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Pard You > 1C 1S > 2S 3D > 3S ? > > You legally hold (the 14th card of the club nine removed): > > Kxxx > xx > AQTxx > Jx > > What call do you make? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >>Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. > > Nige1 Guthrie: > > >Partner opened the bidding, raised spades directly, and > >you have 6-7 losers. The director should ask a group or > >the player's peers what they would do in the given > >auction, without a hesitation. If they have played > >Bridge before, they will bid 4S, like Thomas Dehn. 3D > >was probably an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had > >raised with 3-cards. > > Richard Hills: > > I have played Bridge before, enough Bridge to notice > that the original poster failed to mention the bidding > system employed by East-West. > > If I was playing Acol I would have bid 4S over 2S. I am > not worried about declaring a 4-3 fit with these very > concentrated values. > > But if I was playing Standard American I would have > chosen the 3D trial bid over 2S, then respected pard's > signoff in 3S. > > In Standard American pard's 1C then 2S is consistent > with pard holding a grotty balanced 13 hcp. But in Acol > pard cannot hold a grotty balanced 13 hcp, since with > that hand pard would have opened 1NT, not 1C. That is mainly a difference between strong NT and weak NT rather than one between SA and Acol. Just to be clear: I am still bidding 4S over 2S with the hand under discussion when playing a strong NT or a mini NT and my usual aggressive one level openings. I always bid game when I expect game to be excellent opposite a suitable subminimum such as AQxx,x,Kxx,xxxxx. Thomas From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Apr 12 10:26:20 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:26:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48840205-0FAF-4B40-B0A0-C9DAA3B1978B@btinternet.com> On 11 Apr 2011, at 12:15, Magyar ?d?m wrote: > I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by > now of course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you > find another c9 in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West > hand of the previous board. West told me he had 13 during the > bidding, he remembers bidding 4s because of the doubleton club, but > at the end of the play, he had this c9, since he was trying to > limit his club loosers to one, dummy having Axx. > > > > Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump > into his hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? > It's not so difficult to imagine, that he left a card on the table from the previous board, and some time after the auction he put his hand down on the table (perhaps to think about the play). Then, when picking up his hand again he picked up the stray card as well. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110412/53ca7d66/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 12 13:00:18 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:00:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> References: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> <3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> Message-ID: <4DA430C2.8010102@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/04/2011 20:31, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > [Adam Magyar] > > Kxxx xx AQTxx Jx: 1C-1S-; 2S-3S?-; ?? > > [Paul] > Depending on experience I would also give a PP for the 4S bid after > the hesitation. > [Thomas Dehn] > I would not. Does not look like flagrant intentional use of UI to me. > Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. > [Nige1] > Partner opened the bidding, raised spades directly, and you have 6-7 > losers. The director should ask a group or the player?s pairs what > they would do in the given auction, without a hesitation. If they have > played Bridge before, they will bid 4S, like Thomas Dehn. 3D was > probably an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had raised with 3-cards. > AG : the player didn't mention this, he only spoke of 3S vs 4S and the AC's job isn't to give him reasons for his bidding. BTW, why not ask partner his opinion about whether he covers your losers ? Isn't AJxx-Qxx-Kx-QTxx an opening bid ? (well, if you tell me that partner won't open this, you have a point). And how you count this hand for less than 7 losers escapes me. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110412/1f7d54a1/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 12 13:06:07 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:06:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DA4321F.50104@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/04/2011 8:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Pard You > 1C 1S > 2S 3D > 3S ? > > You legally hold (the 14th card of the club nine removed): > > Kxxx > xx > AQTxx > Jx > > What call do you make? > > Thomas Dehn: > >>> Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. > Nige1 Guthrie: > >> Partner opened the bidding, raised spades directly, and >> you have 6-7 losers. The director should ask a group or >> the player's peers what they would do in the given >> auction, without a hesitation. If they have played >> Bridge before, they will bid 4S, like Thomas Dehn. 3D >> was probably an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had >> raised with 3-cards. > Richard Hills: > > I have played Bridge before, enough Bridge to notice > that the original poster failed to mention the bidding > system employed by East-West. > > If I was playing Acol I would have bid 4S over 2S. I am > not worried about declaring a 4-3 fit with these very > concentrated values. > > But if I was playing Standard American I would have > chosen the 3D trial bid over 2S, then respected pard's > signoff in 3S. > > In Standard American pard's 1C then 2S is consistent > with pard holding a grotty balanced 13 hcp. But in Acol > pard cannot hold a grotty balanced 13 hcp, since with > that hand pard would have opened 1NT, not 1C. AG : the difference between opinions expressed here can indeed come from style habits. As a regular user of Standard French (not very different from American with moderate hands) and Polish Club, which mandate a 1C opening on said grotty hand, I was very surprised to read that some considered 4S as obvious. I'm ready to forgive them for calling me a non-bridge-player if they swear they're pure Acolytes ;-) (note that even that won't necessary be enough, because in my country using Acol with 14-16 or 15-17 NT is popular) From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 12 13:43:03 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:43:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <4DA430C2.8010102@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net><3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> <4DA430C2.8010102@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <29BDA63DEB5147F1A3BE18956204F5F0@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner] The player didn't mention this, he only spoke of 3S vs 4S and the AC's job isn't to give him reasons for his bidding. {nige1] I agree; but the ruling should not depend on whether he can articulate his reasons, unprompted. [Alain Gottcheiner] BTW, why not ask partner his opinion about whether he covers your losers ? Isn't AJxx-Qxx-Kx-QTxx an opening bid ? (well, if you tell me that partner won't open this, you have a point). [Nige2] Yes, I admit that - I would open such hands :) - I don't make all the games I bid. :( - Sometimes, I go down in 4S when I might have made 3S :( [Alain Gottcheiner] And how you count this hand for less than 7 losers escapes me. [Nige2] I assessed Kxxx xx AQTxx Jx as 6-7 losers. - 2 losers in spades - 2 losers in hearts - 1 loser in diamonds - 2 losers in clubs That makes 7 losers on a crude assessment. + value for the honour concentration in diamonds + value for CJ in partner's clubs. + value to the probable 44 trump fit. (Some would deduct a full loser for trump-control). You need only agree with some of that to recognise that you have less than 7 losers.. How would you assess it, Alain? But it doesn't really matter if we agree on how to assess it. The critical factor is how peers of the 4S bidder would assess it. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 12 18:16:13 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:16:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1051358137.514972.1302593577785.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <1051358137.514972.1302593577785.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DA47ACD.7030005@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/04/2011 9:32, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Pard You >> 1C 1S >> 2S 3D >> 3S ? >> >> You legally hold (the 14th card of the club nine removed): >> >> Kxxx >> xx >> AQTxx >> Jx >> >> What call do you make? >> >> Thomas Dehn: >> >>>> Personally, I would have bid 4S over 2S. >> Nige1 Guthrie: >> >>> Partner opened the bidding, raised spades directly, and >>> you have 6-7 losers. The director should ask a group or >>> the player's peers what they would do in the given >>> auction, without a hesitation. If they have played >>> Bridge before, they will bid 4S, like Thomas Dehn. 3D >>> was probably an attempt to reach a 3N if partner had >>> raised with 3-cards. >> Richard Hills: >> >> I have played Bridge before, enough Bridge to notice >> that the original poster failed to mention the bidding >> system employed by East-West. >> >> If I was playing Acol I would have bid 4S over 2S. I am >> not worried about declaring a 4-3 fit with these very >> concentrated values. >> >> But if I was playing Standard American I would have >> chosen the 3D trial bid over 2S, then respected pard's >> signoff in 3S. >> >> In Standard American pard's 1C then 2S is consistent >> with pard holding a grotty balanced 13 hcp. But in Acol >> pard cannot hold a grotty balanced 13 hcp, since with >> that hand pard would have opened 1NT, not 1C. > That is mainly a difference between strong NT and weak NT > rather than one between SA and Acol. > > Just to be clear: I am still bidding 4S over 2S with the hand under discussion > when playing a strong NT or a mini NT and my usual aggressive one level > openings. I always bid game when I expect game to be excellent opposite > a suitable subminimum such as AQxx,x,Kxx,xxxxx. > > AG : and that's probably what the player had in mind when bidding 3D. Now that partner can't hold a suitable minimum anymore ... From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 12 18:18:40 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:18:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <29BDA63DEB5147F1A3BE18956204F5F0@G3> References: <4DA2F7B9.3090603@aol.com> <002201cbf845$26c2bec0$74483c40$@no> <2068741930.494896.1302526794940.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net><3F2C389BAE524839B0B59E9C29259392@G3> <4DA430C2.8010102@ulb.ac.be> <29BDA63DEB5147F1A3BE18956204F5F0@G3> Message-ID: <4DA47B60.7010208@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/04/2011 13:43, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain Gottcheiner] > The player didn't mention this, he only spoke of 3S vs 4S and the AC's job > isn't to give him reasons for his bidding. > {nige1] > I agree; but the ruling should not depend on whether he can articulate his > reasons, unprompted. > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > BTW, why not ask partner his opinion about whether he covers your losers ? > Isn't AJxx-Qxx-Kx-QTxx an opening bid ? (well, if you tell me that partner > won't open this, you have a point). > > [Nige2] > Yes, I admit that > - I would open such hands :) > - I don't make all the games I bid. :( > - Sometimes, I go down in 4S when I might have made 3S :( > > [Alain Gottcheiner] > And how you count this hand for less than 7 losers escapes me. > > [Nige2] > I assessed Kxxx xx AQTxx Jx as 6-7 losers. > - 2 losers in spades > - 2 losers in hearts > - 1 loser in diamonds > - 2 losers in clubs > That makes 7 losers on a crude assessment. > + value for the honour concentration in diamonds > + value for CJ in partner's clubs. > + value to the probable 44 trump fit. (Some would deduct a full loser for > trump-control). > You need only agree with some of that to recognise that you have less than 7 > losers.. > How would you assess it, Alain? > But it doesn't really matter if we agree on how to assess it. > The critical factor is how peers of the 4S bidder would assess it. AG : not exactly. The important part is that, when one bids 3D, on assesses it at less than game value (right or wrong), and for peers of a guy who bid 3D, passing 3S is an option. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 13 01:11:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:11:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] double problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DA47B60.7010208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Blurb for the 1953 paperback edition of George Orwell's 1984: "A startling view of life in 1984! Forbidden love! Fear! Betrayal!" Nigel Guthrie asserted: >>...the ruling should not depend on whether he can articulate his >>reasons, unprompted... William ("Kojak") Schoder, 27th August 2005, refuted: >...too often we find ACs whose interest gravitates to showing their >individual or collective brilliance to play bridge, and ignore the >level of the players involved at the table. I've heard such >comments as "why he has a clear squeeze on East", while North >believes a squeeze is something you only do to oranges, lemons, >girls, and changing lanes in traffic, and then ruling on this >basis... Richard Hills: Hypothetical Appeals Committee member Nigel Guthrie may brilliantly use 3D as a choice-of-games between 3NT and 4S. But the appellants may belong to a different class of player whose 1C - 1S - 2S sequences guarantee four-card spade support. Hence the appellants may non-brilliantly use 3D as a choice-of-game-or-partscore between 3S or 4S. In which case passing 3S was the infractor's one and only logical alternative, and a PP was indeed appropriate for the infractor choosing the UI-suggested illogical alternative of 4S. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 13 01:56:57 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:56:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] double problem [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80F944EA7CE64261A42AC6FC5884959B@G3> [Richard Hills] ...too often we find ACs whose interest gravitates to showing their individual or collective brilliance to play bridge, and ignore the level of the players involved at the table. I've heard such comments as "why he has a clear squeeze on East", while North believes a squeeze is something you only do to oranges, lemons, girls, and changing lanes in traffic, and then ruling on this basis... Hypothetical Appeals Committee member Nigel Guthrie may brilliantly use 3D as a choice-of-games between 3NT and 4S. But the appellants may belong to a different class of player whose 1C - 1S - 2S sequences guarantee four-card spade support. Hence the appellants may non-brilliantly use 3D as a choice-of-game-or-partscore between 3S or 4S. In which case passing 3S was the infractor's one and only logical alternative, and a PP was indeed appropriate for the infractor choosing the UI-suggested illogical alternative of 4S. [Nigel] Stop bashing that poor Strawman, Richard. My suggestions were ... a. The director can ask the player why he bid 3D. b. Assuming that the director fears that there may be LAs to 4S, if possible, he should poll a group of the player?s peers on what action they take, given the auction to 3S, without hesitations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110412/c2cc009f/attachment-0001.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Apr 13 13:07:21 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:07:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] ILA Message-ID: <93C362ACC22C4CB384573D3DE118A623@G3> A while ago there was some debate about whether a UI recipient could avoid sanction by choosing an *illogical* alternative that he hopes may work better than the non-suggested logical alternatiive. Here is an interesting variant on that theme, spun off from the ?Double problem? thread. Suppose that, given the auction without UI, a panel of the players? peers unanimously choose the same (more successful) illogical alternative (paradoxically, somehow, *to them, it is logical*). e.g. from the ?Double problem? thread Suppose that the undisputed facts are: The auction is 1C-1S-; 2S-3D-; 3S-4S at every table, with or without a hesitation over 3S. Suppose that experts all agree that the only logical alternative over 3S is pass; but all the players in the tournament defy reason and bid 4S which is a lucky make. And a panel of the player?s peers all bid 4S, given the auction up until 3S (with no UI). For the player at the table, where 3S was bid after a hesitation, how should the director rule? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110413/29066ec0/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 13 13:24:22 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:24:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ILA In-Reply-To: <93C362ACC22C4CB384573D3DE118A623@G3> References: <93C362ACC22C4CB384573D3DE118A623@G3> Message-ID: <4DA587E6.7090502@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/04/2011 13:07, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > A while ago there was some debate about whether a UI recipient could > avoid sanction by choosing an *illogical* alternative that he hopes > may work better than the non-suggested logical alternatiive. Here is > an interesting variant on that theme, spun off from the ?Double > problem? thread. Suppose that, given the auction without UI, a panel > of the players? peers unanimously choose the same (more successful) > illogical alternative (paradoxically, somehow, *to them, it is logical*). > e.g. from the ?Double problem? thread Suppose that the undisputed > facts are: > The auction is 1C-1S-; 2S-3D-; 3S-4S at every table, with or without a > hesitation over 3S. Suppose that experts all agree that the only > logical alternative over 3S is pass; but all the players in the > tournament defy reason and bid 4S which is a lucky make. And a panel > of the player?s peers all bid 4S, given the auction up until 3S (with > no UI). For the player at the table, where 3S was bid after a > hesitation, how should the director rule? > AG : since a logical alternative is one which will be selected by some, the conditions you mention are contradictory. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110413/8026f5c6/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 13 13:52:29 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:52:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] ILA Message-ID: <282732014.1042014.1302695549322.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > e.g. from the ?Double problem? thread Suppose that the undisputed facts are: > > The auction is 1C-1S-; 2S-3D-; 3S-4S at every table, with or without a > hesitation over 3S. Suppose that experts all agree that the only logical > alternative over 3S is pass; but all the players in the tournament defy > reason and bid 4S which is a lucky make. And a panel of the player?s peers > all bid 4S, given the auction up until 3S (with no UI). For the player at > the table, where 3S was bid after a hesitation, how should the director > rule? The question is what is a logical alternative. The TD would also have to check how many of those peers considered passing 3S. Personally, in the hypothetical scenario you describe, assuming peers did not even consider passing 3S, I would rule that passing 3S is not a logical alternative for this player, except if I think he is an expert (benefit of the doubt going against him there). But I would not be surprised to be overruled on such a ruling. I would also explain the responsibilities to the player. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 04:22:24 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:22:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills, 24th February 2006: [snip] The Canberra Bridge Club frequently runs Swiss teams events of 14-board matches, with several theoretically identical computer generated sets of boards in play shared amongst adjacent tables. Due to the local preference for teams to have a "home" table, opposing teams do not necessarily use the same physical set of boards. Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- longer fouled boards 13 and 14. But was it legal for me to draw attention to this irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 was inapplicable. And I had not yet received unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so Law 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C] was inapplicable. Is this case a counterexample to the so-called "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" interpretation of the Laws? :-) Tim West-Meads, 1st March 2006: [snip] My own view is that the TD should be saying "The laws are silent on what you should have done but my ruling is that your actions contributed positively to the proper and orderly progression of the game and prevented a potentially embarrassing TD error, what you did was legal - TY." The TD should *not* be in the position of having to say "What you did was technically illegal but I'm not going to punish it and I'm not to restore to your opps the result that would have occurred had you not acted illegally." [snip] Richard Hills, 14th April 2011: I now disagree with Richard Hills, in part because in the intervening time Law 72A has been amended to included this requirement, " ... complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." An important nuance is that Law 72A does NOT say, " ... complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards FOR PLAYERS set out in these laws." Ergo, it seems to me that Law 72A requires the player to inform the Director of that Director's error in complying with the lawful procedures, notwithstanding that Law 9 is not yet applicable. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 14 06:04:37 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:04:37 +0800 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <8587BD7B622340D9864D4F74DEBFA1D0@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:22 AM Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills, 24th February 2006: > > [snip] > > The Canberra Bridge Club frequently runs Swiss > teams events of 14-board matches, with several > theoretically identical computer generated sets of > boards in play shared amongst adjacent tables. Due > to the local preference for teams to have a "home" > table, opposing teams do not necessarily use the > same physical set of boards. > > Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, > 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the > stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 > arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 > and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's > assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards > 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. > > The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and > thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also > rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- > longer fouled boards 13 and 14. > > But was it legal for me to draw attention to this > irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 > was inapplicable. And I had not yet received > unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so > Law 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C] was inapplicable. > > Is this case a counterexample to the so-called > "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" > interpretation of the Laws? > In those clubs where boards are computer predealt, boards out of order are a pretty good predictor that the director or her delegate may have failed to follow law 6D1 and F by failing to deal or copy some boards exactly. It is not known at this stage whether an irregularity has occurred. I can see no problem calling the director to ask. If no irregularity has occurred no problem. If deal error, director will fix, again no problem LAW 6 -THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL (snip) D. New Shuffle and Re-deal 1. If it is ascertained before the auction first begins on a board that the cards have been incorrectly dealt (snip there shall be a new shuffle and deal. (snip) F. Duplication of Board If required by the conditions of play, one or more exact copies of each original deal may be made under the Director's instructions. When he so instructs there shall normally be no redeal of a board (although the Director has powers to order it). cheers bill kemp [large snip] > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 06:25:43 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:25:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8587BD7B622340D9864D4F74DEBFA1D0@acer> Message-ID: "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" Ton Kooijman, 25th February 2006: Not if some basic principles in reading anything are ignored, one of them being that some interpretation is needed. In Richard's approach blowing one's nose during bridge is illegal, since nothing in the laws allows you to do so. And 'blowing one's nose' stands for anything done at the table. We need players but they should not be there. In a more practical oriented environment we assume that the laws describe correct procedure and that deviations from that procedure are not allowed. And then blowing one's nose is not considered to be a deviation but something completely independent from the kern of playing bridge (up till the moment that it carries an illegal message concerning the board being played). And it is up to the TD to declare that noticing a strange order in the boards to be played is closer to blowing one's nose than to deviating from correct procedure. It was the organisation that deviated from correct procedure. ton ton If correct procedure tells a player to shut up during play and he then calls the TD for whatever reason that is an infraction. * * * The correct procedure of the "shut up" 2007 Law 20F5: (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 14 07:03:47 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:03:47 +0800 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:22 AM Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills, 24th February 2006: > > [snip] > > The Canberra Bridge Club frequently runs Swiss > teams events of 14-board matches, with several > theoretically identical computer generated sets of > boards in play shared amongst adjacent tables. Due > to the local preference for teams to have a "home" > table, opposing teams do not necessarily use the > same physical set of boards. > > Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, > 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the > stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 > arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 > and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's > assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards > 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. > > The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and > thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also > rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- > longer fouled boards 13 and 14. > > But was it legal for me to draw attention to this > irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 > was inapplicable. And I had not yet received > unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so > Law 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C] was inapplicable. > > Is this case a counterexample to the so-called > "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" > interpretation of the Laws? > You do however have extraneous information from the delivery of the boards in incorrect order which suggests UI Law 16 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. It appears to me that the phrase "as by" indicate that the list that follows is not definitive but I would be happy to be corrected. cheers bill kemp > :-) > > Tim West-Meads, 1st March 2006: > > [snip] > > My own view is that the TD should be saying "The > laws are silent on what you should have done but my > ruling is that your actions contributed positively > to the proper and orderly progression of the game and > prevented a potentially embarrassing TD error, what > you did was legal - TY." The TD should *not* be in > the position of having to say "What you did was > technically illegal but I'm not going to punish it > and I'm not to restore to your opps the result that > would have occurred had you not acted illegally." > > [snip] > > Richard Hills, 14th April 2011: > > I now disagree with Richard Hills, in part because > in the intervening time Law 72A has been amended to > included this requirement, " ... complying with the > lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in > these laws." > > An important nuance is that Law 72A does NOT say, > " ... complying with the lawful procedures and > ethical standards FOR PLAYERS set out in these > laws." Ergo, it seems to me that Law 72A requires > the player to inform the Director of that Director's > error in complying with the lawful procedures, > notwithstanding that Law 9 is not yet applicable. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 14 07:58:20 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:58:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 16 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. Bill Kemp: It appears to me that the phrase "as by" indicate that the list that follows is not definitive but I would be happy to be corrected. Richard Hills: One of my pedantic peeves is that a technical manual (for example The Fine Law Book) should not use the phrase "for example" in one place and "as" in another. The technical manual should boringly repeat, for example, "for example" and "infraction" throughout, to avoid confusion. For example, the use of "infringe" instead of "infraction" in Law 72B1 confused an uber- pedantic blmler, thus requiring an official WBF LC interpretation defining "infringe" and "infract" as synonyms. Hence Law 16C1 is easier to understand if the word "as" is replaced by its synonym "for example". We now observe a non-exhaustive list of indicative examples (for example, Law 16B1(a) also contains a non-exhaustive list of indicative examples, but at least Law 16B1(a) is easier to interpret (except, for example, by an uberpedantic blmler) since Law 16B1(a) does include the phrase "for example"). Paul Banko and Julia Williams, Eggs, Nests, and Nesting Behaviour of Akiapolaau (Drepanidinae): " ... four-egg sample ... " Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 14 14:53:50 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:53:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8587BD7B622340D9864D4F74DEBFA1D0@acer> Message-ID: <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:22 AM Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills, 24th February 2006: > > [snip] > > The Canberra Bridge Club frequently runs Swiss > teams events of 14-board matches, with several > theoretically identical computer generated sets of > boards in play shared amongst adjacent tables. Due > to the local preference for teams to have a "home" > table, opposing teams do not necessarily use the > same physical set of boards. > > Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, > 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the > stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 > arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 > and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's > assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards > 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. > > The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and > thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also > rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- > longer fouled boards 13 and 14. > > But was it legal for me to draw attention to this > irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 > was inapplicable. And I had not yet received > unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so > Law 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C] was inapplicable. > > Is this case a counterexample to the so-called > "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" > interpretation of the Laws? > In those clubs where boards are computer predealt, boards out of order are a pretty good predictor that the director or her delegate may have failed to follow law 6D1 and F by failing to deal or copy some boards exactly. It is not known at this stage whether an irregularity has occurred. I can see no problem calling the director to ask. If no irregularity has occurred no problem. If deal error, director will fix, again no problem LAW 6 -THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL (snip) D. New Shuffle and Re-deal 1. If it is ascertained before the auction first begins on a board that the cards have been incorrectly dealt (snip there shall be a new shuffle and deal. (snip) F. Duplication of Board If required by the conditions of play, one or more exact copies of each original deal may be made under the Director's instructions. When he so instructs there shall normally be no redeal of a board (although the Director has powers to order it). cheers bill kemp [large snip] > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 14 16:06:46 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:06:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: <48840205-0FAF-4B40-B0A0-C9DAA3B1978B@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> Message-ID: <4DA70AE3.5020103@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/04/2011 14:53, Grattan Endicott a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott Skype: grattan.endicott > ********************************************* > "I have learnt from my mistakes and > I feel sure that, with practice, I can > repeat them." > ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) > ********************************************* > > +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a > clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. > However, I am willing to receive representations. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Bill& Helen Kemp > Sent: 14 April 2011 05:05 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:22 AM > Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Richard Hills, 24th February 2006: >> >> [snip] >> >> The Canberra Bridge Club frequently runs Swiss >> teams events of 14-board matches, with several >> theoretically identical computer generated sets of >> boards in play shared amongst adjacent tables. Due >> to the local preference for teams to have a "home" >> table, opposing teams do not necessarily use the >> same physical set of boards. >> >> Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, >> 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the >> stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 >> arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 >> and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's >> assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards >> 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. >> >> The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and >> thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also >> rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- >> longer fouled boards 13 and 14. >> >> But was it legal for me to draw attention to this >> irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 >> was inapplicable. And I had not yet received >> unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so >> Law 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C] was inapplicable. >> >> Is this case a counterexample to the so-called >> "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" >> interpretation of the Laws? >> > In those clubs where boards are computer predealt, boards out of order > are a > pretty good predictor that the director or her delegate may have failed > to > follow law 6D1 and F by failing to deal or copy some boards exactly. > It is not known at this stage whether an irregularity has occurred. I > can > see no problem calling the director to ask. If no irregularity has > occurred > no problem. If deal error, director will fix, again no problem > > > LAW 6 -THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL > AG : I think nobody had addressed the original problem yet. There is no doubt that there is enough in TFLB to ensure that the boards be corrected, or redealt if necessary. The question is : can you draw the TD's attention to an irregularity before the game has begun ? Or does the fact that you have to alert the TD in proper time during the play (L9) mean, by inference, that you can't at other times : /exception regulam probat in casis non exceptibus/. Of course you can. If there are already two pairs at the table where you shall be sitting, and both insist that they shall, too, what do you do ? The possible/exceptio/ is to the verb 'have to', and linked penalties, not to the globally right idea that, when there is a danger of fouling the session, the TD should be alerted at once. Even by a spectator, BTW. If, as a spectator, I saw an error in the move, I would say it. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110414/c215076f/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 14 17:01:44 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:01:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] double problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DA70C58.1080103@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/04/2011 16:06, Grattan Endicott a ?crit : > > ** > > ** > > **Grattan Endicott > **Skype: grattan.endicott** > > ***************************************** > > **"I have learnt from my mistakes and ** > > **I feel sure that, with practice, I can ** > > **repeat them."** > > ** ~ ' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook)** > > /*/*********************************************/*/ > > /*//*/ > > /*/+=+ /*//*/One possibility is that the extra card was in his /*/ > > /*/hand all the time but concealed so that he was unaware /*/ > > /*/of it. Stuck behind another card perhaps. /*/ > > /*/ I am loathe to override the Law 6A requirement that /*/ > > /*/the cards *must* be dealt into four hands of thirteen /*/ > > /*/cards each. > /*/ > AG : when the facts can't be ascertained for sure, the TD shall decide on the basis of probability. Gordon's scenario is more plausible than a 53-card pack having been dealt without anyone noticing. BTW, if that's the case, the player with the 14-card hand is at fault for not having counted it. And there is always the possibility that he manufactured an irregularity by picking one card from a stray pack in the hope that Grattan would declare the board fouled, hence letting him escape the impending score rectification. Best regards Alain > /*//*/ > > /*/........................................................./*/ > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] > > *On Behalf Of *Gordon Rainsford > *Sent:* 12 April 2011 09:26 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] double problem > > On 11 Apr 2011, at 12:15, Magyar ?d?m wrote: > > I looked at it for a while, and quickly found what you all found by > now of course: West had 14 cards. All other players had 13, and you > find another c9 in the South hand, and a c9 missing from the West hand > of the previous board. West told me he had 13 during the bidding, he > remembers bidding 4s because of the doubleton club, but at the end of > the play, he had this c9, since he was trying to limit his club losers > to one, dummy having Axx. > > Suppose you believe him his story, that misteriously a c9 had jump > into his hand mid-play, what is your decision (other room: 4s =)? > > It's not so difficult to imagine, that he left a card on the table > from the previous board, and some time after the auction he put his > hand down on the table (perhaps to think about the play). Then, when > picking up his hand again he picked up the stray card as well. > > Gordon Rainsford > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110414/17c4c2a5/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 14 18:01:12 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:01:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> References: <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0400, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott Skype: grattan.endicott > ********************************************* > "I have learnt from my mistakes and > I feel sure that, with practice, I can > repeat them." > ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) > ********************************************* > > +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a > clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. > However, I am willing to receive representations. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think anyone should be authorized try to correct errors in movement. Or put another way, anyone can help with anything before a hand is pulled from the board. This includes kibitzers. Same for errors in scoring. Assuming you define "players" as just the people at the table, I am guessing that other players are not allowed to help correct scoring errors. Of course they do all of the time and that is what we want them to do. Right now a director can get around this, at least partially by requesting this help. (I have a permanent request to this effect.) I interpret players as other tables are spectators. It could be handled in the same place where you clarify the status of people playing in the game but not sitting at the table. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Bill & Helen Kemp > Sent: 14 April 2011 05:05 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:22 AM > Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> Richard Hills, 24th February 2006: >> >> [snip] >> >> The Canberra Bridge Club frequently runs Swiss >> teams events of 14-board matches, with several >> theoretically identical computer generated sets of >> boards in play shared amongst adjacent tables. Due >> to the local preference for teams to have a "home" >> table, opposing teams do not necessarily use the >> same physical set of boards. >> >> Last night, the TD gave me a stack of boards 12, >> 14 and 13 to commence my match. I wondered why the >> stack was not ordered in the usual 12, 13 and 14 >> arrangement, so I asked the TD to check boards 13 >> and 14 against the hand records. Voila! The TD's >> assistant had incorrectly stacked this set's boards >> 13 and 14 in the duplicating machine. >> >> The TD corrected the Law 6E3 infraction, and >> thanked me for my alertness. Virtue was also >> rewarded, since my team gained 12 imps upon the no- >> longer fouled boards 13 and 14. >> >> But was it legal for me to draw attention to this >> irregularity? It was before the auction, so Law 9 >> was inapplicable. And I had not yet received >> unauthorised information from the fouled boards, so >> Law 16B [now the 2007 Law 16C] was inapplicable. >> >> Is this case a counterexample to the so-called >> "everything not specifically permitted is illegal" >> interpretation of the Laws? >> > > In those clubs where boards are computer predealt, boards out of order > are a > pretty good predictor that the director or her delegate may have failed > to > follow law 6D1 and F by failing to deal or copy some boards exactly. > It is not known at this stage whether an irregularity has occurred. I > can > see no problem calling the director to ask. If no irregularity has > occurred > no problem. If deal error, director will fix, again no problem > > > LAW 6 -THE SHUFFLE AND DEAL > > > > (snip) > > > > D. New Shuffle and Re-deal > > > > 1. If it is ascertained before the auction first begins on a board that > the > cards have been incorrectly dealt (snip there shall be a new > shuffle > and deal. > > > > (snip) > > > > F. Duplication of Board > > If required by the conditions of play, one or more exact copies of each > original deal may be made under the Director's instructions. When he so > instructs there shall normally be no redeal of a board (although the > Director has powers to order it). > > > > cheers > > > > bill kemp > > > > [large snip] > >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section >> Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 >> DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >> email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From blml at arcor.de Thu Apr 14 19:19:31 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:19:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> Message-ID: <2133273762.600725.1302801571617.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0400, Grattan Endicott > wrote: > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > Skype: grattan.endicott > > ********************************************* > > "I have learnt from my mistakes and > > I feel sure that, with practice, I can > > repeat them." > > ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) > > ********************************************* > > > > +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a > > clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. > > However, I am willing to receive representations. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > I think anyone should be authorized try to correct errors in movement. Or > put another way, anyone can help with anything before a hand is pulled > from the board. This includes kibitzers. I think you do not mean what you wrote. Consider the following scenario: Pair XY arrives at table 10 in the red room. Actually they are supposed to play at table 10 in the red room. A kibitzer instructs them to go to table 10 in the blue room. I think the TD has to hold pair XY accountable for anything that happens because they went to the wrong table. Hands picked up at the wrong table, boards not played because of the delay that caused and so on. "A kibitzer told us to do this" cannot be an excuse. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 14 21:00:49 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:00:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2133273762.600725.1302801571617.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> <2133273762.600725.1302801571617.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:19:31 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0400, Grattan Endicott >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Grattan Endicott> > Skype: grattan.endicott >> > ********************************************* >> > "I have learnt from my mistakes and >> > I feel sure that, with practice, I can >> > repeat them." >> > ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) >> > ********************************************* >> > >> > +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a >> > clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. >> > However, I am willing to receive representations. >> > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >> >> >> I think anyone should be authorized try to correct errors in movement. >> Or >> put another way, anyone can help with anything before a hand is pulled >> from the board. This includes kibitzers. > > I think you do not mean what you wrote. > > Consider the following scenario: > Pair XY arrives at table 10 in the red room. > Actually they are supposed to play at table 10 in the red room. > > A kibitzer instructs them to go to table 10 in the blue room. > > I think the TD has to hold pair XY accountable for > anything that happens because they went to the wrong table. > Hands picked up at the wrong table, boards not played > because of the delay that caused and so on. > > "A kibitzer told us to do this" cannot be an excuse. I agree. I just want the kibitzer being authorized to say something or do something if he/she thinks the pair is going to the wrong place. I don't want anyone complaining because a spectator robbed them of their A+ when a pair was going to the wrong table, or complaining that a spectator pointed out a scoring error. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Apr 15 02:32:45 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:32:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DA70AE3.5020103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >The question is: can you draw the TD's attention to an irregularity >before the game has begun ? Or does the fact that you have to alert >the TD in proper time during the play (L9) mean, by inference, that >you can't at other times: exception regulam probat in casis non >exceptibus. Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule] http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm [snip] These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove the rule that all crows are black. [snip] It's not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn't follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted". Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says "Entry free today" leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days (unless it's a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that some stores have, but let's not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: "Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm", which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule. Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception..... Richard Hills: In the 1970s Leandro Burgay (an Italian sponsor) accused Pietro Forquet (a many-time Italian World Champion) of being a ch**t. At a subsequent Italian Championship Benito Garozzo met Burgay in the foyer of the venue. Garozzo, a long-time partner and friend of Forquet, demonstrated his disapproval of Burgay by punching Burgay onto the floor. Garozzo demonstrated the depth of his disapproval by then kicking Burgay. When this incident was brought to the attention of the Italian Championship Disciplinary Committee, they applied exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. As Garozzo's pugilistic skills had been displayed before the commencement of the first session of the championship, the Disciplinary Committee ruled that they lacked any power. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Apr 17 09:37:34 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:37:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case Message-ID: <201104170737.p3H7bU3R017107@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> I found the following problem difficult to rule on, and difficult to work out a reasonable way to adjust: Dealer West, Both Vul, MP North 7 4 A 6 5 3 2 9 8 5 10 8 4 West East K 8 A J 10 9 6 J 9 8 4 10 A Q J 7 6 4 2 3 K J 7 6 5 2 South Q 5 3 2 K Q 7 K 10 3 A Q 9 The players are all fairly experienced, but only ordinary club players, and supposedly playing "Standard American" The bidding West North East South 1D pass 2C 2NT (1) pass 3D 3S pass (2) 3NT pass 4S all pass The 2NT bid was alerted, West asked and was told it showed the minors! After her partner had chosen diamonds!, and East had also asked about the meaning of the 2NT bid, and then bid 3S, (2)South came to me and asked what she should do as partner had misexplained her hand. At the table I asked North to leave, and South explained that 2NT was meant as natural. I remained at the table mentioning that adjusted scores were possible if the non offenders could show damage. At this stage, both East and West should have realised that a wheel had come off the NS auction, yet their 3NT and 4S were bid with this information. Four spades went 3 off owing to rather bad play, and indeed most of the room got to 4S off 2 or in some cases off 1. I have no doubt that this pair has never had to bid 2NT, supposedly as natural, after the opponent have advertised more than half the pack. Nevertheless there is clear misinformation. Later I had some trouble even explaining to South that she must continue to bid in the system she was playing. She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer even though she knows from the MI that it is not the intent. I eventually adjusted to 1 off in 3NT but fortunately even "score stands" made not the slightest difference to the final results Cheers Tony (Sydney) From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Apr 17 12:45:15 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:45:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case In-Reply-To: <201104170737.p3H7bU3R017107@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201104170737.p3H7bU3R017107@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4DAAC4BB.50601@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > I found the following problem difficult to rule on, > and difficult to work out a reasonable way to > adjust: > > Dealer West, Both Vul, MP > North > 7 4 > A 6 5 3 2 > 9 8 5 > 10 8 4 > West East > K 8 A J 10 9 6 > J 9 8 4 10 > A Q J 7 6 4 2 > 3 K J 7 6 5 2 > South > Q 5 3 2 > K Q 7 > K 10 3 > A Q 9 > > The players are all fairly experienced, but only ordinary > club players, and supposedly playing "Standard American" > > The bidding > > West North East South > > 1D pass 2C 2NT (1) > pass 3D 3S pass (2) > 3NT pass 4S all pass > > The 2NT bid was alerted, West asked and was > told it showed the minors! After her partner had > chosen diamonds!, and East had also asked about > the meaning of the 2NT bid, and then bid 3S, (2)South > came to me and asked what she should do as partner > had misexplained her hand. > At the table I asked North to leave, and South explained > that 2NT was meant as natural. I remained at the table > mentioning that adjusted scores were possible if the > non offenders could show damage. At this stage, both East > and West should have realised that a wheel had come > off the NS auction, yet their 3NT and 4S were bid with > this information. Four spades went 3 off owing to rather > bad play, and indeed most of the room got to 4S off 2 or > in some cases off 1. > I have no doubt that this pair has never had to bid 2NT, > supposedly as natural, after the opponent have advertised > more than half the pack. Nevertheless there is clear > misinformation. Later I had some trouble even explaining > to South that she must continue to bid in the system > she was playing. She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer > even though she knows from the MI that it is not the intent. > Well, I would not say that she is oblliged to alert it - since she is bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner, but she is to treat it as a transfer and bid 3H - only she can't anymore. > I eventually adjusted to 1 off in 3NT but fortunately even > "score stands" made not the slightest difference to the final > results > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Apr 18 02:44:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:44:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAAC4BB.50601@skynet.be> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >>She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer even though she >>knows from the MI that it is not the intent. Herman De Wael: >Well, I would not say that she is obliged to alert it - >since she is bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner Richard Hills: Both Herman and Tony are wrong. If the ABF rules require an alert of a 3D transfer (and the ABF rules do so require), and if 3D was a transfer under pre- existing mutual partnership understanding, then 3D MUST be alerted whether or not this alert appears to be a wakeup contrary to Law 20F5. Herman is well aware that the WBF Laws Committee has ruled that the Law 40 prohibition on MI over- rides Law 20F5 whenever there is any inconsistency. Herman is simply refusing to admit that on this aspect of Law he is now conclusively wrong. Tony is also wrong. 3D must be alerted as a transfer not when South believes it to be a transfer, but when it actually is a transfer. Law 75A requires South to bid in accordance with her initial belief that 3D is a transfer, but to explain 3D in accordance with pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. On this deal and with these facts, as Director I would rule that an accurate description of South's 2NT would be "Not discussed", and an accurate description of North's 3D would be "Even more not discussed". According to senior Australian Director Matthew McManus, the ABF policy on "Not discussed" calls (i.e. calls beyond system) is that they are not alerted. However, the ABF policy on "Not systemic" calls (i.e. calls contradicting system) is that they are indeed alerted. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 18 05:18:35 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:18:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Board 21 Hills Dlr: North Q4 Vul: North-South K8 543 AQT975 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol principle of "bid what you think you can make" As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what calls do you seriously consider? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 18 06:17:33 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:17:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case In-Reply-To: <4DAAC4BB.50601@skynet.be> References: <201104170737.p3H7bU3R017107@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4DAAC4BB.50601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201104180417.p3I4HYgC026814@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 08:45 PM 17/04/2011, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > I found the following problem difficult to rule on, > > and difficult to work out a reasonable way to > > adjust: > > > > Dealer West, Both Vul, MP > > North > > 7 4 > > A 6 5 3 2 > > 9 8 5 > > 10 8 4 > > West East > > K 8 A J 10 9 6 > > J 9 8 4 10 > > A Q J 7 6 4 2 > > 3 K J 7 6 5 2 > > South > > Q 5 3 2 > > K Q 7 > > K 10 3 > > A Q 9 > > > > The players are all fairly experienced, but only ordinary > > club players, and supposedly playing "Standard American" > > > > The bidding > > > > West North East South > > > > 1D pass 2C 2NT (1) > > pass 3D 3S pass (2) > > 3NT pass 4S all pass > > > > The 2NT bid was alerted, West asked and was > > told it showed the minors! After her partner had > > chosen diamonds!, and East had also asked about > > the meaning of the 2NT bid, and then bid 3S, (2)South > > came to me and asked what she should do as partner > > had misexplained her hand. > > At the table I asked North to leave, and South explained > > that 2NT was meant as natural. I remained at the table > > mentioning that adjusted scores were possible if the > > non offenders could show damage. At this stage, both East > > and West should have realised that a wheel had come > > off the NS auction, yet their 3NT and 4S were bid with > > this information. Four spades went 3 off owing to rather > > bad play, and indeed most of the room got to 4S off 2 or > > in some cases off 1. > > I have no doubt that this pair has never had to bid 2NT, > > supposedly as natural, after the opponent have advertised > > more than half the pack. Nevertheless there is clear > > misinformation. Later I had some trouble even explaining > > to South that she must continue to bid in the system > > she was playing. She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer > > even though she knows from the MI that it is not the intent. > > Herman wrote: >Well, I would not say that she is oblliged to alert it - since she is >bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner, but she is to treat it >as a transfer and bid 3H - only she can't anymore. Thanks Herman, Actually this is the way I play. I quite often have to sit down opposite a player whose partner has not turned up and I never have time to discuss system. So I open 2NT, she alters "for the minors", I do not alert 3C (Stayman) because we have no agreement but I bid as though it is Stayman. In the problem example, I think that once the director has been called, all players at the table should have the message, so I say that 3D still has to be alerted. You seem to be arguing that South should say nothing, not even a director call, bids 3H and North possibly is allowed to "wake up". Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 18 07:23:17 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:23:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1931157920.91081.1303104197498.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Board 21 Hills > Dlr: North Q4 > Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > AQT975 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) > Pass Pass 5D Pass > Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit > (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but > Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol > principle of "bid what you think you can make" > > As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what > calls do you seriously consider? Pass, 5S, and double. Thomas From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Apr 18 07:30:57 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:30:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a501cbfd89$cb757310$62605930$@nl> Given the vulnerability I assume the pass of South is forcing. I do not know this partnerships (meta)agreements about slow vs fast bidding, but anyway my first choice would be 5S. Second choice double. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: maandag 18 april 2011 5:19 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Board 21 Hills Dlr: North Q4 Vul: North-South K8 543 AQT975 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol principle of "bid what you think you can make" As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what calls do you seriously consider? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:09:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201104180417.p3I4HYgC026814@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >Actually this is the way I play. I quite often have to sit down >opposite a player whose partner has not turned up and I never have >time to discuss system. So I open 2NT, she alters "for the minors", >I do not alert 3C (Stayman) because we have no agreement but I bid >as though it is Stayman. Richard Hills: Yes, 100% consistent with the Laws and the ABF alert regulation. 1. Tony opens 2NT with big balanced values because he (incorrectly) believes he has an implicit understanding with a random partner. 2. Random partner in her regular partnership opens 2NT with 5/5 minors, so she alerts and explains accordingly, then bids 3C. 3. Pursuant to Law 75A Tony must bid as if 3C was the alertable Stayman convention. 4. Pursuant to Law 40 Tony must non-alert as if 3C was a non- alertable undiscussed call, because 3C is a non-alertable un- discussed call. Last weekend the Trials to select the ACT Open Team were held. During the marathon of 154 boards, only once was the Director summoned to my table. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- --- 1D Pass 1NT 2D When asked to explain my 2D bid, Hashmat Ali stated that this particular situation had not been decided by a pre-existing mutual explicit partnership understanding, and that we had two conflicting implicit understandings. We had a precedent that if West had bid a non-diamond suit, then 2D would be a natural overcall showing opening bid values. We had a precedent that an immediate 2D bid by South would show 5/5 in the majors and less than opening bid values. So the Director was summoned, sent Hashmat away from the table, and Sean Mullamphy asked me to explain my own 2D bid. (1) I stated that this particular situation had not been decided by a pre- existing mutual explicit partnership understanding, and that we had two conflicting implicit understandings. We had a precedent that if West had bid a non-diamond suit, then 2D would be a natural overcall showing opening bid values. We had a precedent that an immediate 2D bid by South would show 5/5 in the majors and less than opening bid values. I did NOT state what cards I actually held in my hand. I did NOT state what style I actually held in my mind. This was a point TD Tony should have emphasised to the original South in his original posting on this thread. When TD Tony sent North away from the table, TD Tony should have told South that South is obliged to describe the North-South _mutual_ agreement, NOT the South _unilateral_ intention. That is, in the original posting East-West are not entitled to know "that 2NT was meant as natural". Law 75C. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) After the deal was over, the Ali-Hills partnership decided to go with a future agreement of 2D meaning a weak 5/5 in the majors. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 18 08:22:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:22:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Board 21 Hills Dlr: North Q4 Vul: North-South K8 543 AQT975 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass X Pass Pass 5H ? (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol principle of "bid what you think you can make" As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what calls do you seriously consider? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 18 09:01:53 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:01:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201104180701.p3I71st8028832@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:22 PM 18/04/2011, you wrote: >Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board >matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > >Board 21 Hills >Dlr: North Q4 >Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > AQT975 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali >--- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) >Pass Pass 5D Pass >Pass X Pass Pass >5H ? > >(1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit >(2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but > Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol > principle of "bid what you think you can make" > >As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what >calls do you seriously consider? > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills I detect a trick question. I do not believe any player would volunteer to emulate Richard's thought processes, let alone attempt to play his system Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 18 09:18:24 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:18:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <646561028.35333.1303111104076.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Board 21 Hills > Dlr: North Q4 > Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > AQT975 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) > Pass Pass 5D Pass > Pass X Pass Pass > 5H ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit > (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but > Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol > principle of "bid what you think you can make" > > As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what > calls do you seriously consider? I still consider Pass, double, and 5S. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 18 09:51:17 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:51:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case In-Reply-To: <201104180417.p3I4HYgC026814@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201104170737.p3H7bU3R017107@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4DAAC4BB.50601@skynet.be> <201104180417.p3I4HYgC026814@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4DABED75.6020909@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 08:45 PM 17/04/2011, you wrote: >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> I found the following problem difficult to rule on, >>> and difficult to work out a reasonable way to >>> adjust: >>> >>> Dealer West, Both Vul, MP >>> North >>> 7 4 >>> A 6 5 3 2 >>> 9 8 5 >>> 10 8 4 >>> West East >>> K 8 A J 10 9 6 >>> J 9 8 4 10 >>> A Q J 7 6 4 2 >>> 3 K J 7 6 5 2 >>> South >>> Q 5 3 2 >>> K Q 7 >>> K 10 3 >>> A Q 9 >>> >>> The players are all fairly experienced, but only ordinary >>> club players, and supposedly playing "Standard American" >>> >>> The bidding >>> >>> West North East South >>> >>> 1D pass 2C 2NT (1) >>> pass 3D 3S pass (2) >>> 3NT pass 4S all pass >>> >>> The 2NT bid was alerted, West asked and was >>> told it showed the minors! After her partner had >>> chosen diamonds!, and East had also asked about >>> the meaning of the 2NT bid, and then bid 3S, (2)South >>> came to me and asked what she should do as partner >>> had misexplained her hand. >>> At the table I asked North to leave, and South explained >>> that 2NT was meant as natural. I remained at the table >>> mentioning that adjusted scores were possible if the >>> non offenders could show damage. At this stage, both East >>> and West should have realised that a wheel had come >>> off the NS auction, yet their 3NT and 4S were bid with >>> this information. Four spades went 3 off owing to rather >>> bad play, and indeed most of the room got to 4S off 2 or >>> in some cases off 1. >>> I have no doubt that this pair has never had to bid 2NT, >>> supposedly as natural, after the opponent have advertised >>> more than half the pack. Nevertheless there is clear >>> misinformation. Later I had some trouble even explaining >>> to South that she must continue to bid in the system >>> she was playing. She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer >>> even though she knows from the MI that it is not the intent. >>> > Herman wrote: > > >> Well, I would not say that she is oblliged to alert it - since she is >> bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner, but she is to treat it >> as a transfer and bid 3H - only she can't anymore. > Thanks Herman, > > Actually this is the way I play. I quite often have to sit down opposite > a player whose partner has not turned up and I never have time > to discuss system. So I open 2NT, she alters "for the minors", > I do not alert 3C (Stayman) because we have no agreement but > I bid as though it is Stayman. In the problem example, I think > that once the director has been called, all players at the table > should have the message, so I say that 3D still has to be alerted. > You seem to be arguing that South should say nothing, not even > a director call, bids 3H and North possibly is allowed to > "wake up". > Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. South should not call the TD (L20F5), should not alert (same, although tempered by the Beijing interpretation), bid 3H (L16) and allow North to "wake up". When North does wake up and correct his original explanation, and bids 4D, South should really look at his cards once again and decide that North has shown very many red cards and probably bid 5D. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1321 / Virus Database: 1500/3580 - Release Date: 04/17/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 18 09:48:02 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:48:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DABECB2.20905@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > >>> She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer even though she >>> knows from the MI that it is not the intent. > > Herman De Wael: > >> Well, I would not say that she is obliged to alert it - >> since she is bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner > > Richard Hills: > > Both Herman and Tony are wrong. > > If the ABF rules require an alert of a 3D transfer (and the > ABF rules do so require), and if 3D was a transfer under pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding, then 3D MUST be > alerted whether or not this alert appears to be a wakeup > contrary to Law 20F5. Herman is well aware that the WBF Laws > Committee has ruled that the Law 40 prohibition on MI over- > rides Law 20F5 whenever there is any inconsistency. Herman > is simply refusing to admit that on this aspect of Law he is > now conclusively wrong. > Yes, I know that, and about 100 other players in the world. But not a single one of the players in the tournament I am playing in would know this. And they would not alert, for precisely the reason that I mention. And there I am, in this very same situation. Now I have a choice. I could alert, and give UI to my partner, give ?EI to my opponents, and end up with a bad score; or I could chose not to alert, and end up with the same score as all my opponents - and then instruct the TD on the Beijing interpretation, so that he can punish me and all other infractors in the same manner. Now I happen to believe that it is very hard for a TD to penalize this infraction, and that when he does, he may well up with a better score than the one reached at the table after the giving of UI. Which is why I urge the WBF to do away with the Beijing interpretation. It simply won't work, and those unfortunate enough to follow it will be worse off than those that, knowingly or not, simply flaunt it. > Tony is also wrong. 3D must be alerted as a transfer not > when South believes it to be a transfer, but when it actually > is a transfer. Law 75A requires South to bid in accordance > with her initial belief that 3D is a transfer, but to explain > 3D in accordance with pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding. > And this is precisely what is wrong with this advice. The dWS advice is simple: bid as if 2NT were strong (so bid 3H) and alert and explain as if partner were correct (in this case, don't alert). Simple to understand, and easy to follow. The MS advice OTOH is very difficult to follow, because it tells the player to alert according to the "true" agreement. How is a player going to know what the "true" agreement is when he has just heard that his partner does not agree with him. And how should the TD react to a player who tells him "I thought my partner was right, so I continued to explain according to his beliefs". The Beijing interpretation is totally worthless as a guideline to directors. > On this deal and with these facts, as Director I would rule > that an accurate description of South's 2NT would be "Not > discussed", and an accurate description of North's 3D would be > "Even more not discussed". > That may true, but it tells the opponents more than they are entitled to know. After all, when push comes to shove, the TD might well have to rule that the true "agreement" is the one that conforms to the hand, and the opponents won't be told that. Which is why I shall never rule against a player who says, with a straight face "it is that" and turns out to be wrong. Well, I'll rule MI, but nothing more than that. And I believe the spirit of the laws is like that. MI shall be corrected for, but it is otherwise acceptable. The laws accept that players play with failing memory and incomplete system. > According to senior Australian Director Matthew McManus, the > ABF policy on "Not discussed" calls (i.e. calls beyond system) > is that they are not alerted. However, the ABF policy on "Not > systemic" calls (i.e. calls contradicting system) is that they > are indeed alerted. > I would hope that the scope of blml goes beyond the boundaries of Australia, so this does not help the rest of us. Besides, the problem is not only one of alerting. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1321 / Virus Database: 1500/3580 - Release Date: 04/17/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Apr 18 09:54:22 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:54:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DABEE2E.9070907@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Tony Musgrove: > >> Actually this is the way I play. I quite often have to sit down >> opposite a player whose partner has not turned up and I never have >> time to discuss system. So I open 2NT, she alters "for the minors", >> I do not alert 3C (Stayman) because we have no agreement but I bid >> as though it is Stayman. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, 100% consistent with the Laws and the ABF alert regulation. > > 1. Tony opens 2NT with big balanced values because he (incorrectly) > believes he has an implicit understanding with a random partner. > > 2. Random partner in her regular partnership opens 2NT with 5/5 > minors, so she alerts and explains accordingly, then bids 3C. > > 3. Pursuant to Law 75A Tony must bid as if 3C was the alertable > Stayman convention. > > 4. Pursuant to Law 40 Tony must non-alert as if 3C was a non- > alertable undiscussed call, because 3C is a non-alertable un- > discussed call. > Under this interpretation, players in Australia are allowed to get off shot-free (well, they end up in 5D, of course) while players in some other country, unfortunate enough to have 3C Stayman be alertable, will see their contract be 3HX. Surely the laws should not depend on the alerting regulations in place! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 18 11:04:53 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:04:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> <2133273762.600725.1302801571617.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DABFEB5.1010500@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/04/2011 21:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:19:31 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0400, Grattan Endicott >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Grattan Endicott>>> Skype: grattan.endicott >>>> ********************************************* >>>> "I have learnt from my mistakes and >>>> I feel sure that, with practice, I can >>>> repeat them." >>>> ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) >>>> ********************************************* >>>> >>>> +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a >>>> clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. >>>> However, I am willing to receive representations. >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> >>> >>> I think anyone should be authorized try to correct errors in movement. >>> Or >>> put another way, anyone can help with anything before a hand is pulled >>> from the board. This includes kibitzers. >> I think you do not mean what you wrote. >> >> Consider the following scenario: >> Pair XY arrives at table 10 in the red room. >> Actually they are supposed to play at table 10 in the red room. >> >> A kibitzer instructs them to go to table 10 in the blue room. >> >> I think the TD has to hold pair XY accountable for >> anything that happens because they went to the wrong table. >> Hands picked up at the wrong table, boards not played >> because of the delay that caused and so on. >> >> "A kibitzer told us to do this" cannot be an excuse. > I agree. I just want the kibitzer being authorized to say something or do > something if he/she thinks the pair is going to the wrong place. > > I don't want anyone complaining because a spectator robbed them of their > A+ when a pair was going to the wrong table, or complaining that a > spectator pointed out a scoring error. > _______________________________________________ AG : but surely the kibitz could alert the TD as to the wrong (in his opinion) position; Also, a kibitz should be allowed to help solve already ascertained problems : "I think that the 52nd card you're searching for is here". From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 18 11:12:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:12:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAC0082.4030209@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/04/2011 2:32, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> The question is: can you draw the TD's attention to an irregularity >> before the game has begun ? Or does the fact that you have to alert >> the TD in proper time during the play (L9) mean, by inference, that >> you can't at other times: exception regulam probat in casis non >> exceptibus. > Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule] > > http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm > > [snip] > > These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an > inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the > existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule > applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, > notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the > logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a > rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the > old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove > the rule that all crows are black. > > [snip] > > It's not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but > exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn't follow > the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that > is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. > The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal > principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which > may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases > not excepted". > > Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a > notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may > reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other > six days of the week. AG : I agree with all that. In fact, I used Mr. Quinion's article in a seminary about scientific reasoning quite afew times. Now would you please answer my question : does this apply to TFLB, i.e. is any statement that you can't do X at time Y imply that you can do X at other times ? And my statement was : be careful to negate the right verb. Even if "exceptio regulam probat" was active, the fact that you must draw attention during the play wouldn't mean that you may not at other times ; it would just mean that you aren't compelled to do it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 18 11:23:49 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:23:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAC0325.2080705@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/04/2011 2:44, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Tony Musgrove: > >>> She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer even though she >>> knows from the MI that it is not the intent. > Herman De Wael: > >> Well, I would not say that she is obliged to alert it - >> since she is bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner > Richard Hills: > > Both Herman and Tony are wrong. > > If the ABF rules require an alert of a 3D transfer (and the > ABF rules do so require), and if 3D was a transfer under pre- > existing mutual partnership understanding, then 3D MUST be > alerted whether or not this alert appears to be a wakeup > contrary to Law 20F5. Herman is well aware that the WBF Laws > Committee has ruled that the Law 40 prohibition on MI over- > rides Law 20F5 whenever there is any inconsistency. Herman > is simply refusing to admit that on this aspect of Law he is > now conclusively wrong. AG : except, of course, that it is very probable that 2NT wasn't natural in their system, in which case alerting the transfer would be misinformation. Surely you have to correct to 3H (which would be serendipitously right), because you aren't allowed to use the explanation to remember your system, but surely too you aren't allowed to give what you now know will be MI. (if 2NT was for the majors, as it probably should be, then 3D would be a cue-bid, but cues aren't alertable in my country) From blml at arcor.de Mon Apr 18 11:25:36 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:25:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DABFEB5.1010500@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DABFEB5.1010500@ulb.ac.be> <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> <2133273762.600725.1302801571617.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2145301205.40967.1303118736282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 14/04/2011 21:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:19:31 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > >> Robert Frick wrote: > >>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0400, Grattan Endicott > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Grattan Endicott >>>> Skype: grattan.endicott > >>>> ********************************************* > >>>> "I have learnt from my mistakes and > >>>> I feel sure that, with practice, I can > >>>> repeat them." > >>>> ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) > >>>> ********************************************* > >>>> > >>>> +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a > >>>> clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. > >>>> However, I am willing to receive representations. > >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think anyone should be authorized try to correct errors in movement. > >>> Or > >>> put another way, anyone can help with anything before a hand is pulled > >>> from the board. This includes kibitzers. > >> I think you do not mean what you wrote. > >> > >> Consider the following scenario: > >> Pair XY arrives at table 10 in the red room. > >> Actually they are supposed to play at table 10 in the red room. > >> > >> A kibitzer instructs them to go to table 10 in the blue room. > >> > >> I think the TD has to hold pair XY accountable for > >> anything that happens because they went to the wrong table. > >> Hands picked up at the wrong table, boards not played > >> because of the delay that caused and so on. > >> > >> "A kibitzer told us to do this" cannot be an excuse. > > I agree. I just want the kibitzer being authorized to say something or do > > something if he/she thinks the pair is going to the wrong place. > > > > I don't want anyone complaining because a spectator robbed them of their > > A+ when a pair was going to the wrong table, or complaining that a > > spectator pointed out a scoring error. > > _______________________________________________ > > AG : but surely the kibitz could alert the TD as to the wrong (in his > opinion) position; > > Also, a kibitz should be allowed to help solve already ascertained > problems : "I think that the 52nd card you're searching for is here". Consider the following scenario: A match between teams A and B is watched by a supporter of team A. Early in the match, a player from team A misses the 52nd card. The kibitzer points it out: "I think that the 52nd card you're searching for is here". Later in the match, a player from team B misses the 52nd card. The kibitzer has seen the card, but stays silent. And now? Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 18 11:26:32 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:26:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAC03C8.5050500@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/04/2011 5:18, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Board 21 Hills > Dlr: North Q4 > Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > AQT975 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) > Pass Pass 5D Pass > Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit > (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but > Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol > principle of "bid what you think you can make" > > As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what > calls do you seriously consider? AG : under said principle, at red, partner's pass is forcing, and both double and 5S are plausible. But most would understand 4S as being at least mildly preemptive, which would make the pass nonforcing. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 18 11:43:49 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:43:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2145301205.40967.1303118736282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4DABFEB5.1010500@ulb.ac.be> <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> <2133273762.600725.1302801571617.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2145301205.40967.1303118736282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DAC07D5.4010409@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/04/2011 11:25, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 14/04/2011 21:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:19:31 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0400, Grattan Endicott >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Grattan Endicott>>>>> Skype: grattan.endicott >>>>>> ********************************************* >>>>>> "I have learnt from my mistakes and >>>>>> I feel sure that, with practice, I can >>>>>> repeat them." >>>>>> ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) >>>>>> ********************************************* >>>>>> >>>>>> +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a >>>>>> clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. >>>>>> However, I am willing to receive representations. >>>>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>>>> >>>>> I think anyone should be authorized try to correct errors in movement. >>>>> Or >>>>> put another way, anyone can help with anything before a hand is pulled >>>>> from the board. This includes kibitzers. >>>> I think you do not mean what you wrote. >>>> >>>> Consider the following scenario: >>>> Pair XY arrives at table 10 in the red room. >>>> Actually they are supposed to play at table 10 in the red room. >>>> >>>> A kibitzer instructs them to go to table 10 in the blue room. >>>> >>>> I think the TD has to hold pair XY accountable for >>>> anything that happens because they went to the wrong table. >>>> Hands picked up at the wrong table, boards not played >>>> because of the delay that caused and so on. >>>> >>>> "A kibitzer told us to do this" cannot be an excuse. >>> I agree. I just want the kibitzer being authorized to say something or do >>> something if he/she thinks the pair is going to the wrong place. >>> >>> I don't want anyone complaining because a spectator robbed them of their >>> A+ when a pair was going to the wrong table, or complaining that a >>> spectator pointed out a scoring error. >>> _______________________________________________ >> AG : but surely the kibitz could alert the TD as to the wrong (in his >> opinion) position; >> >> Also, a kibitz should be allowed to help solve already ascertained >> problems : "I think that the 52nd card you're searching for is here". > Consider the following scenario: > A match between teams A and B is watched by a supporter of team A. > Early in the match, a player from team A misses the 52nd card. > The kibitzer points it out: "I think that the 52nd card you're searching for is here". > Later in the match, a player from team B misses the 52nd card. > The kibitzer has seen the card, but stays silent. > > And now? > AG : and now this distinguo is without any interest, because when one card is missing game stops until the player finds the card, so the kibitz isn't helping one team, he merely allows the game to re-start faster. Of course, if the kibitz' action had the effect of lessening the penalty, it would be disallowed (and that's written in TFLB). From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Apr 18 14:29:18 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:29:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAC0325.2080705@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DAC0325.2080705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <201104181229.p3ICTKLh006537@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 07:23 PM 18/04/2011, you wrote: >Le 18/04/2011 2:44, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Tony Musgrove: > > > >>> She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer even though she > >>> knows from the MI that it is not the intent. > > Herman De Wael: > > > >> Well, I would not say that she is obliged to alert it - > >> since she is bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner > > Richard Hills: > > > > Both Herman and Tony are wrong. > > > > If the ABF rules require an alert of a 3D transfer (and the > > ABF rules do so require), and if 3D was a transfer under pre- > > existing mutual partnership understanding, then 3D MUST be > > alerted whether or not this alert appears to be a wakeup > > contrary to Law 20F5. Herman is well aware that the WBF Laws > > Committee has ruled that the Law 40 prohibition on MI over- > > rides Law 20F5 whenever there is any inconsistency. Herman > > is simply refusing to admit that on this aspect of Law he is > > now conclusively wrong. > >AG : except, of course, that it is very probable that 2NT wasn't natural >in their system, in which case alerting the transfer would be >misinformation. >Surely you have to correct to 3H (which would be serendipitously right), >because you aren't allowed to use the explanation to remember your >system, but surely too you aren't allowed to give what you now know will >be MI. > >(if 2NT was for the majors, as it probably should be, then 3D would be a >cue-bid, but cues aren't alertable in my country) I think according to Richard, North is supposed to obfuscate behind "undiscusssed", bid 3D as a two way bid (perhaps it is a serendipidous transfer, or at least 3D might be playable. I think others have stated that North must guess and suffer the MI if he guesses wrong. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 18 15:33:25 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:33:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:22 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Board 21 Hills > Dlr: North Q4 > Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > AQT975 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) > Pass Pass 5D Pass > Pass X Pass Pass > 5H ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit > (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but > Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol > principle of "bid what you think you can make" > > As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what > calls do you seriously consider? Double and pass. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Apr 18 15:32:09 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:32:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <609D405B-B2E6-4328-AE73-FED3476D7EE5@starpower.net> On Apr 17, 2011, at 11:18 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Board 21 Hills > Dlr: North Q4 > Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > AQT975 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) > Pass Pass 5D Pass > Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit > (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but > Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol > principle of "bid what you think you can make" > > As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what > calls do you seriously consider? Double (my choice), pass and 5S. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Apr 18 16:29:58 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:29:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201104181229.p3ICTKLh006537@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4DAC0325.2080705@ulb.ac.be> <201104181229.p3ICTKLh006537@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4DAC4AE6.9060405@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/04/2011 14:29, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 07:23 PM 18/04/2011, you wrote: >> Le 18/04/2011 2:44, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> Tony Musgrove: >>> >>>>> She is obliged to alert 3D as a transfer even though she >>>>> knows from the MI that it is not the intent. >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>>> Well, I would not say that she is obliged to alert it - >>>> since she is bound by L20F5 to do nothing to wake up partner >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Both Herman and Tony are wrong. >>> >>> If the ABF rules require an alert of a 3D transfer (and the >>> ABF rules do so require), and if 3D was a transfer under pre- >>> existing mutual partnership understanding, then 3D MUST be >>> alerted whether or not this alert appears to be a wakeup >>> contrary to Law 20F5. Herman is well aware that the WBF Laws >>> Committee has ruled that the Law 40 prohibition on MI over- >>> rides Law 20F5 whenever there is any inconsistency. Herman >>> is simply refusing to admit that on this aspect of Law he is >>> now conclusively wrong. >> AG : except, of course, that it is very probable that 2NT wasn't natural >> in their system, in which case alerting the transfer would be >> misinformation. >> Surely you have to correct to 3H (which would be serendipitously right), >> because you aren't allowed to use the explanation to remember your >> system, but surely too you aren't allowed to give what you now know will >> be MI. >> >> (if 2NT was for the majors, as it probably should be, then 3D would be a >> cue-bid, but cues aren't alertable in my country) > I think according to Richard, North is supposed to obfuscate behind > "undiscusssed", bid 3D as a two way bid (perhaps it is a serendipidous > transfer, or at least 3D might be playable. I think others have stated > that North must guess and suffer the MI if he guesses wrong. AG : suppose that North thinks 2NT is unusual, but suspects it might be natural. Should he say exactly this, creating UI, with the hope that it won't affect the sequence (i.e. partner will react according to his own interpretation and it could work) ? Or should he say "unusual", thereby possibly creating MI ? I'd say it depends on the degree of confidence. But if the latter, North should be allowed to try escaping from his bidding problem, by bidding 3D rather than 3C, so that if he's wrong partner will take 3D as a transfer and land in a reasonable contract. He could pay for giving MI, but at least he will avoid some catastrophes. This isn't uncommon in non-alertable situations, e.g. 1C 2C pass ? You hold : AQxx - xx - Jxxx - Qxx and hesitate between 'natural' and 'majors', and a cue-bis is self-alerting. The best bid is probably 3S facing 'majors' and 3C facing 'natural', but I think you're allowed to maximize your chances by bidding 3S. If partner holds clubs, he'll take it as a FJ, which isn't very far from your hand. (3C would make partner's 3H ambiguous) In alertable cases, after explaining your doubts, there is a possibility that it will create UI that you might have thusly hedged your bets, but it will seldom be obvious and usable. Best regards alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Apr 18 17:47:22 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:47:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2145301205.40967.1303118736282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> References: <4DABFEB5.1010500@ulb.ac.be> <35E91421DB7747398CB68372667F949B@Thain> <2133273762.600725.1302801571617.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> <2145301205.40967.1303118736282.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail17.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 05:25:36 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 14/04/2011 21:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:19:31 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> > >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:53:50 -0400, Grattan Endicott >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Grattan Endicott> >>>> Skype: grattan.endicott >> >>>> ********************************************* >> >>>> "I have learnt from my mistakes and >> >>>> I feel sure that, with practice, I can >> >>>> repeat them." >> >>>> ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) >> >>>> ********************************************* >> >>>> >> >>>> +=+ I am not really persuaded there is a need to add a >> >>>> clarification of this into the laws at our next attempt. >> >>>> However, I am willing to receive representations. >> >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> I think anyone should be authorized try to correct errors in >> movement. >> >>> Or >> >>> put another way, anyone can help with anything before a hand is >> pulled >> >>> from the board. This includes kibitzers. >> >> I think you do not mean what you wrote. >> >> >> >> Consider the following scenario: >> >> Pair XY arrives at table 10 in the red room. >> >> Actually they are supposed to play at table 10 in the red room. >> >> >> >> A kibitzer instructs them to go to table 10 in the blue room. >> >> >> >> I think the TD has to hold pair XY accountable for >> >> anything that happens because they went to the wrong table. >> >> Hands picked up at the wrong table, boards not played >> >> because of the delay that caused and so on. >> >> >> >> "A kibitzer told us to do this" cannot be an excuse. >> > I agree. I just want the kibitzer being authorized to say something >> or do >> > something if he/she thinks the pair is going to the wrong place. >> > >> > I don't want anyone complaining because a spectator robbed them of >> their >> > A+ when a pair was going to the wrong table, or complaining that a >> > spectator pointed out a scoring error. >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> AG : but surely the kibitz could alert the TD as to the wrong (in his >> opinion) position; >> >> Also, a kibitz should be allowed to help solve already ascertained >> problems : "I think that the 52nd card you're searching for is here". > > Consider the following scenario: > A match between teams A and B is watched by a supporter of team A. > Early in the match, a player from team A misses the 52nd card. > The kibitzer points it out: "I think that the 52nd card you're searching > for is here". > Later in the match, a player from team B misses the 52nd card. > The kibitzer has seen the card, but stays silent. > > And now? In general, this is an unsolved problem. Whether or not a kibitzer is allowed to point out a revoke, everyone else on blml thought the player was obligated to correct the revoke. Or suppose a kibitzer points out that a player has given the wrong explanation of a bid. The players are not allowed to use this information in the selection of their bids, but I think the opinion on blml was that the players could use this information to provide the correct explanation of their bids to their opponents. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Mon Apr 18 21:16:57 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:16:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills In-Reply-To: <609D405B-B2E6-4328-AE73-FED3476D7EE5@starpower.net> References: <609D405B-B2E6-4328-AE73-FED3476D7EE5@starpower.net> Message-ID: [richard hills] As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what calls do you seriously consider? [nigel] But who has the effrontery to presume such an elevation? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Apr 19 00:14:36 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:14:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Board 21 Hills Dlr: North Q4 Vul: North-South K8 543 AQT975 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass X Pass Pass 5H X Pass Pass Pass ? (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol principle of "bid what you think you can make" As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what opening leads do you seriously consider? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 19 00:54:24 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:54:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DABFEB5.1010500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : but surely the kibitzer could alert the TD as to the >wrong (in the kibitzer's opinion) position Richard Hills: Yes and no. Law 76C1: A spectator may speak as to fact or law within the playing area* _only_ when requested to do so by the Director. * 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: Some years ago, when the old 1997 Lawbook was in effect, a blmler made the somewhat silly assertion that a spectator could not legally report an act of ch**t*ng observed by that spectator. The 2007 footnote to Law 76 now makes it abundantly clear that a person is only temporarily a spectator, ceasing to have that status at the end of the session. So after the session is over the former spectator can use due process and proper channels to report the observed ch**t*ng. (But as other blmlers have observed, changing Law 76 in 2018 to permit spectators to freely affect play during the session is fraught with deleterious consequences, as for example wealthy sponsors hiring spectators in addition to team-mates.) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 19 01:26:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:26:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAC4AE6.9060405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : suppose that North thinks 2NT is unusual, but suspects it might >be natural. > >Should he say exactly this, creating UI, [big snip] Richard Hills: None of the above. If North suspects that South probably INTENDED her bid of 2NT as unusual, but North also suspects that South possibly INTENDED her bid of 2NT as natural, both of these well- founded suspicions about INTENT are irrelevant under Law. A unilateral INTENTION of one partner is not a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both partners, and it is for the pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit understanding of both partners which Law 75C (second sentence) states: "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." Tony Musgrove: >I think according to Richard, North is supposed to obfuscate behind >"undiscusssed" Richard Hills: "A great big new tax on everything" or "obfuscate" are techniques in the logical fallacy of framing the debate. Actually, according to Richard, North-South should obey Law 75. And since Law 75 is subtle in its application the Director "should advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder" pursuant to Law 81C2. Herman De Wael: >Which is why I urge the WBF to do away with the Beijing >interpretation. It simply won't work, and those unfortunate enough >to follow it will be worse off than those that, knowingly or not, >simply flaunt it. Richard Hills: There is an important difference between "simply won't work" and "has not been adequately explained". A rewrite and update of Law 75 in 2018 would clarify the reasonable and logical position taken by the vast majority of Regulating Authorities both before and after the 2008 Beijing minute of the WBF Laws Committee. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 19 01:46:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:46:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what calls do >>you seriously consider? Nigel Guthrie: >But who has the effrontery to presume such an elevation? Ron Johnson, 27th May 2005: (one of Lowenthal's partners came up with a series of rules for playing with Lowenthal. Among them was that when Lowenthal led a trump, he probably had a singleton some place. Another was that the lead of an honor *denied* a touching honor, if he had an honor sequence he'd probably have led a low card.) Lowenthal didn't psyche much, but his decision making process and the inferences that he drew were, to put it mildly, unexpected. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 19 05:42:11 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:42:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DABEE2E.9070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Surely the laws should not depend on the alerting regulations >in place! Richard Hills: Why not? Two identical situations arise in Australia and ACBL-land. In Australia there is no infraction. In ACBL-land there is a Law 40B5 infraction and a Law 90 procedural penalty because of the system regulations in place. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 19 10:33:51 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:33:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAD48EF.10708@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > >> Surely the laws should not depend on the alerting regulations >> in place! > > Richard Hills: > > Why not? > > Two identical situations arise in Australia and ACBL-land. In > Australia there is no infraction. In ACBL-land there is a Law > 40B5 infraction and a Law 90 procedural penalty because of the > system regulations in place. > Yes but these are infractions of the regulation itself, not implicationis on some law. If in one jurisdiction all alerts are clearly indicated, so that a non-alert clearly shows one meaning, and in a second one there are situations where a non-alert can show plural meanings, then in the first jurisdiction the Beijing interpretation has far stronger implication than in the second one. In the second jusrisdiction, when the second call does not get alerted, the opponents will assume a meaning that is consistent with the original misinterpretation, and they will not get any benefit from knowing about the misunderstanding. In the first jurisdiction OTOH, the (non-)alert will - either inform the opponents of the misunderstanding, - or be ruled by the TD as an infraction against the Beijing interpretation, yielding (in a strong interpretation of Beijing) to the same catastrophic result. Which means that, through a different alert procedure, opponents in the first jurisdiction have an advantage over those in the second one, in becoming entitled to the knowledge of a misunderstanding. And such a distinction cannot be the aim of an alert procedure. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 19 12:42:12 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:42:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAD6704.7070001@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/04/2011 1:26, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : suppose that North thinks 2NT is unusual, but suspects it might >> be natural. >> >> Should he say exactly this, creating UI, > [big snip] > > Richard Hills: > > None of the above. If North suspects that South probably INTENDED > her bid of 2NT as unusual, but North also suspects that South > possibly INTENDED her bid of 2NT as natural, both of these well- > founded suspicions about INTENT are irrelevant under Law. AG : true. But you assume that there is a precise meaning in the system (including "totally undiscussed"). But what if North thinks there is a meaning, but isn't 100% sure of which ? From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 19 16:03:51 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:03:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:14 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Board 21 Hills > Dlr: North Q4 > Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > AQT975 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hills Ali > --- 2C (1) Pass 4S (2) > Pass Pass 5D Pass > Pass X Pass Pass > 5H X Pass Pass > Pass ? > > (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit > (2) 2D would be an artificial game force relay, but > Ali-Hills also use the old-fashioned Acol > principle of "bid what you think you can make" > > As a player of the same class as Richard Hills, what > opening leads do you seriously consider? SQ, CA. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Apr 19 16:21:44 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:21:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case In-Reply-To: <4DAD6704.7070001@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DAD6704.7070001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <74B4D619-D896-4C2A-9333-870ADE2B64DB@starpower.net> On Apr 19, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 19/04/2011 1:26, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> AG : suppose that North thinks 2NT is unusual, but suspects it might >>> be natural. >>> >>> Should he say exactly this, creating UI, >> >> [big snip] >> >> None of the above. If North suspects that South probably INTENDED >> her bid of 2NT as unusual, but North also suspects that South >> possibly INTENDED her bid of 2NT as natural, both of these well- >> founded suspicions about INTENT are irrelevant under Law. > > AG : true. But you assume that there is a precise meaning in the > system > (including "totally undiscussed"). > But what if North thinks there is a meaning, but isn't 100% sure of > which ? He should still avoid expressing his suppositions or suspicions excplicitly. But if he is truly uncertain as to what he believes is a meaning by agreement (as opposed to merely his partner's intention, which Richard addresses), that can only be because agreed system principles (AKA "meta-agreements") suggest conflicting deductions. In that situation, you should disclose the known agreements based on which you have determined that the meaning is ambiguously defined, and let the opponents determine for themselves what suppositions or suspicions those agreements might give rise to. You can't disclose an agreement you don't have, but you should be as helpful and forthcoming as possible in explaining whatever relevant agreements you do have. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Apr 19 16:58:37 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:58:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case In-Reply-To: <74B4D619-D896-4C2A-9333-870ADE2B64DB@starpower.net> References: <4DAD6704.7070001@ulb.ac.be> <74B4D619-D896-4C2A-9333-870ADE2B64DB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DADA31D.1060107@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > He should still avoid expressing his suppositions or suspicions > excplicitly. But if he is truly uncertain as to what he believes is > a meaning by agreement (as opposed to merely his partner's intention, > which Richard addresses), that can only be because agreed system > principles (AKA "meta-agreements") suggest conflicting deductions. > In that situation, you should disclose the known agreements based on > which you have determined that the meaning is ambiguously defined, > and let the opponents determine for themselves what suppositions or > suspicions those agreements might give rise to. You can't disclose > an agreement you don't have, but you should be as helpful and > forthcoming as possible in explaining whatever relevant agreements > you do have. > All very true, but not really practical. What if the opponents draw the wrong conclusion, and you draw the right one. Is that just a (un-)lucky guess? Or is there some meta-meta-agreement that you used (perhaps even without realizing it) and that opponents lack? What is the TD going to rule in such a case? MI? Yet you have told them every "relevant agreements you have". Which is why I believe it is best to guess and tell them that guess, without revealing it is a guess. That way, even if you have guessed wrongly, all you will face is a bad contract (the opponents won't be damaged if you guess badly), but not a bad, and doubled contract. > > Eric Landau -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 19 18:20:20 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:20:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case In-Reply-To: <74B4D619-D896-4C2A-9333-870ADE2B64DB@starpower.net> References: <4DAD6704.7070001@ulb.ac.be> <74B4D619-D896-4C2A-9333-870ADE2B64DB@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DADB644.8040205@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/04/2011 16:21, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Apr 19, 2011, at 6:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 19/04/2011 1:26, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>> >>>> AG : suppose that North thinks 2NT is unusual, but suspects it might >>>> be natural. >>>> >>>> Should he say exactly this, creating UI, >>> [big snip] >>> >>> None of the above. If North suspects that South probably INTENDED >>> her bid of 2NT as unusual, but North also suspects that South >>> possibly INTENDED her bid of 2NT as natural, both of these well- >>> founded suspicions about INTENT are irrelevant under Law. >> AG : true. But you assume that there is a precise meaning in the >> system >> (including "totally undiscussed"). >> But what if North thinks there is a meaning, but isn't 100% sure of >> which ? > He should still avoid expressing his suppositions or suspicions > excplicitly. But if he is truly uncertain as to what he believes is > a meaning by agreement (as opposed to merely his partner's intention, > which Richard addresses), that can only be because agreed system > principles (AKA "meta-agreements") suggest conflicting deductions. AG : this is indeed the most probable case, but 'I don't remember whether that suggestion was eventually adopted' is a possibility, too. > > In that situation, you should disclose the known agreements based on > which you have determined that the meaning is ambiguously defined, > and let the opponents determine for themselves what suppositions or > suspicions those agreements might give rise to. You can't disclose > an agreement you don't have, but you should be as helpful and > forthcoming as possible in explaining whatever relevant agreements > you do have. > AG : the problem, of course, is with agreements you aren't sure you do have, especially when you know you do have /some/ agreement (i.e. you know it was discussed, but can't remember the decision). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110419/aaa751f2/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Apr 19 18:21:36 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:21:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little MI case In-Reply-To: <4DADA31D.1060107@skynet.be> References: <4DAD6704.7070001@ulb.ac.be> <74B4D619-D896-4C2A-9333-870ADE2B64DB@starpower.net> <4DADA31D.1060107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DADB690.9090408@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/04/2011 16:58, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Eric Landau wrote: >> He should still avoid expressing his suppositions or suspicions >> excplicitly. But if he is truly uncertain as to what he believes is >> a meaning by agreement (as opposed to merely his partner's intention, >> which Richard addresses), that can only be because agreed system >> principles (AKA "meta-agreements") suggest conflicting deductions. >> In that situation, you should disclose the known agreements based on >> which you have determined that the meaning is ambiguously defined, >> and let the opponents determine for themselves what suppositions or >> suspicions those agreements might give rise to. You can't disclose >> an agreement you don't have, but you should be as helpful and >> forthcoming as possible in explaining whatever relevant agreements >> you do have. >> > All very true, but not really practical. > > What if the opponents draw the wrong conclusion, and you draw the right > one. Is that just a (un-)lucky guess? Or is there some > meta-meta-agreement that you used (perhaps even without realizing it) > and that opponents lack? > What is the TD going to rule in such a case? MI? Yet you have told them > every "relevant agreements you have". > > Which is why I believe it is best to guess and tell them that guess, > without revealing it is a guess. That way, even if you have guessed > wrongly, all you will face is a bad contract (the opponents won't be > damaged if you guess badly), but not a bad, and doubled contract. > AG : of course it pight happen that your bed contract heppens to be the good one as the cards lay, in which case there are more problems to come. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 20 00:28:03 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:28:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A player of RH's class should have remembered the basic principle of "when in doubt, bid one more". Possible results -> +650 = 5S +150 = 5D +100 = 5Hx opening lead of the ace of clubs -650 = 5Hx opening lead of anything else I led the queen of spades, 20+ imps down the toilet. ACT Open Trials Match 6 Board 21 Richard Hills Dlr: North Q4 Vul: North-South K8 543 Mark Abraham AQT975 Griff Ware 9852 --- AQJ764 932 --- KQJT982 K43 Hashmat Ali J86 AKJT763 T5 A76 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2C (1) Pass 4S Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass X (2) Pass Pass 5H X Pass Pass Pass (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit. (2) With Qx of spades I should have chosen 5S. With Hashmat declarer in 5S Mark cannot get a diamond ruff so 11 tricks are cold on the club finesse. The opening lead of the ace of clubs would have been both logical and successful. But on my queen of spades lead Mark ruffed in dummy, took a ruffing finesse in diamonds, and eventually threw me in with the king of trumps to lead away from my clubs. -650 defending 5Hx instead of +650 declaring 5S. The two morals of this story are -> 1. When the Director awards a Law 12 Assigned Adjusted Score, the Director should not necessarily assume that an expert player would have played expertly. 2. Persistence pays. Despite this and other debacles (e.g. declaring 1NTx for -1400), the Ali-Hills partnership plugged away over the 154 boards of the ACT Open Trials while enforcing Law 74A2 upon each other. Ergo, Ali-Hills finished in first place in the Trials, so we will represent the Australian Capital Territory at the Interstate Teams in Melbourne in July. (Abraham-Ware were runners-up in the Trials, so they will also be part of the ACT Open Team.) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 20 08:25:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:25:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Herman De Wael (quoted out of context): >.....those unfortunate enough to follow it will be worse off >than those that, knowingly or not, simply flaunt it. Law 73C: When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. =+= Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout Richard Hills Hashmat Ali NORTH SOUTH 1NT(1) 2H (2) 2S (3) 3S (4) ? (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major (2) transfer to spades (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West You, Richard Hills, hold: J93 Q953 AJT9 A5 What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 20 11:10:27 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:10:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAEA303.80201@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/04/2011 0:28, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > A player of RH's class should have remembered the basic principle > of "when in doubt, bid one more". > > Possible results -> > > +650 = 5S > +150 = 5D > +100 = 5Hx opening lead of the ace of clubs > -650 = 5Hx opening lead of anything else > > I led the queen of spades, 20+ imps down the toilet. > > ACT Open Trials > Match 6 > Board 21 Richard Hills > Dlr: North Q4 > Vul: North-South K8 > 543 > Mark Abraham AQT975 Griff Ware > 9852 --- > AQJ764 932 > --- KQJT982 > K43 Hashmat Ali J86 > AKJT763 > T5 > A76 > 2 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 2C (1) Pass 4S > Pass Pass 5D Pass > Pass X (2) Pass Pass > 5H X Pass Pass > Pass > > (1) 10-14 hcp, 6+ clubs, no other 4-card suit. > (2) With Qx of spades I should have chosen 5S. With Hashmat > declarer in 5S Mark cannot get a diamond ruff so 11 tricks are > cold on the club finesse. AG : I don't think that this deal is in any manner a proof of anything. Except, perhaps, that The Law isn't always right. 1.Tthe set of results that you mentioned is abnormal. Just exchance the CK (or a spade) for a small heart. In adjusticating LAs, and whether a decision was gambling etc., we should be careful not to decide on the basis of the actual deal. 2. Although Richard told us about the partnership's tendency to aim at the target directly (Acol style), very few of us would have imagined such a strong Ali hand. This shows why it is often difficult to tell whether agreement descriptions were complete. Few Acol players would have answered 4S over 1C on this hand. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 20 11:20:09 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:20:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAEA549.9020900@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/04/2011 8:25, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout > > Richard Hills Hashmat Ali > NORTH SOUTH > 1NT(1) 2H (2) > 2S (3) 3S (4) > ? > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major > (2) transfer to spades > (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit > (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch > noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West > > You, Richard Hills, hold: > > J93 > Q953 > AJT9 > A5 > > What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? > AG : is there any history of what twitches indicate about partner(s holding ? If any, it could be that partner wanted to bid something else, perhaps 4S, or 3H, or 3NT. In that case, you would have to pass, which anyway is probably right. Other possible explanations are : hay fever, plain fever, hot coffee, avoiding coughing, or testing partner's integrity. So, perhaps you're cutting it too fine. Of course, if you intend to argue that we need as many screens as possible, I'm on your side. In my country, screens are demanded down to the 3rd tier of T4 competition, and strongly suggested in 4th tier, which is rather low. Best regards alain From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 20 12:23:31 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:23:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1331004710.96773.1303295011678.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael (quoted out of context): > > >.....those unfortunate enough to follow it will be worse off > >than those that, knowingly or not, simply flaunt it. > > Law 73C: > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information > from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, > gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or > hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must > carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized > information. > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. > > =+= > > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout > > Richard Hills Hashmat Ali > NORTH SOUTH > 1NT(1) 2H (2) > 2S (3) 3S (4) > ? > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major > (2) transfer to spades > (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit > (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch > noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West > > You, Richard Hills, hold: > > J93 > Q953 > AJT9 > A5 > > What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? 4S, but I would pass nonvul. The way I interpret the auction, partner has shown a mild invitation with six spades. With a "good" invitation, he just just bid 4S. I have three spades and a ruffing value in clubs. I do not have a spade top, thus I expect that we have to lose a spade trick to establish spades. I consider 3NT, but I deem it an LA that might be suggested by the little subtle twitch. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 20 12:50:24 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:50:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1331004710.96773.1303295011678.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <1331004710.96773.1303295011678.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DAEBA70.60408@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/04/2011 12:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Herman De Wael (quoted out of context): >> >>> .....those unfortunate enough to follow it will be worse off >>> than those that, knowingly or not, simply flaunt it. >> Law 73C: >> >> When a player has available to him unauthorized information >> from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, >> gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or >> hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must >> carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized >> information. >> * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. >> >> =+= >> >> Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board >> matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale >> >> Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout >> >> Richard Hills Hashmat Ali >> NORTH SOUTH >> 1NT(1) 2H (2) >> 2S (3) 3S (4) >> ? >> >> (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major >> (2) transfer to spades >> (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit >> (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch >> noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West >> >> You, Richard Hills, hold: >> >> J93 >> Q953 >> AJT9 >> A5 >> >> What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? > 4S, but I would pass nonvul. > > The way I interpret the auction, partner has shown > a mild invitation with six spades. With a "good" invitation, he > just just bid 4S. I have three spades > and a ruffing value in clubs. I do not have a spade top, > thus I expect that we have to lose a spade trick to establish spades. > > I consider 3NT, but I deem it an LA that might be suggested by the little subtle twitch. > AG : notice that the standard for disallowing a bid is that the suggestion must be obvious. Hardly the case here. If YT has twitched, the four most probable reasons would be, in decreasing order : a) sore back (doesn't sugget anything, as I won't have to play the contract) b) having placed a spade in the clubs or a club in the spades (the former suggests bidding 3NT or passing, the latter suggests bidding 4S) c) hay fever (doesn't suggest anything) d) forgot the weak NT (suggests passing) Yet some TDs would state that the action I choose, whatever it was, was suggested by the twitch. Of course this must be wrong. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 20 13:08:22 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:08:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAEBA70.60408@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DAEBA70.60408@ulb.ac.be> <1331004710.96773.1303295011678.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2073455261.98129.1303297702151.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 20/04/2011 12:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Herman De Wael (quoted out of context): > >> > >>> .....those unfortunate enough to follow it will be worse off > >>> than those that, knowingly or not, simply flaunt it. > >> Law 73C: > >> > >> When a player has available to him unauthorized information > >> from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, > >> gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or > >> hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must > >> carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized > >> information. > >> * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. > >> > >> =+= > >> > >> Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > >> matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > >> > >> Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout > >> > >> Richard Hills Hashmat Ali > >> NORTH SOUTH > >> 1NT(1) 2H (2) > >> 2S (3) 3S (4) > >> ? > >> > >> (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major > >> (2) transfer to spades > >> (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit > >> (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch > >> noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West > >> > >> You, Richard Hills, hold: > >> > >> J93 > >> Q953 > >> AJT9 > >> A5 > >> > >> What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? > > 4S, but I would pass nonvul. > > > > The way I interpret the auction, partner has shown > > a mild invitation with six spades. With a "good" invitation, he > > just just bid 4S. I have three spades > > and a ruffing value in clubs. I do not have a spade top, > > thus I expect that we have to lose a spade trick to establish spades. > > > > I consider 3NT, but I deem it an LA that might be suggested by the little > subtle twitch. > > > > AG : notice that the standard for disallowing a bid is that the > suggestion must be obvious. Agree. I wrote "Might be suggested" intentionally. ;-) > Hardly the case here. > If YT has twitched, the four most probable reasons would be, in > decreasing order : > > a) sore back (doesn't sugget anything, as I won't have to play the > contract) > b) having placed a spade in the clubs or a club in the spades (the > former suggests bidding 3NT or passing, the latter suggests bidding 4S) > c) hay fever (doesn't suggest anything) > d) forgot the weak NT (suggests passing) Well, you'd have to have been there. I mean, did he twitch on the alert, before bidding 3S, or after bidding 3S but before LHO bid, or some time after 3S when it might have been too late to change the call? Maybe he wanted to bid 3H or 3NT rather than 3S? Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 20 13:12:27 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:12:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAEBA70.60408@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DAEBA70.60408@ulb.ac.be> <1331004710.96773.1303295011678.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1681197527.98241.1303297947184.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 20/04/2011 12:23, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Herman De Wael (quoted out of context): > >> > >>> .....those unfortunate enough to follow it will be worse off > >>> than those that, knowingly or not, simply flaunt it. > >> Law 73C: > >> > >> When a player has available to him unauthorized information > >> from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, > >> gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or > >> hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must > >> carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized > >> information. > >> * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. > >> > >> =+= > >> > >> Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board > >> matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > >> > >> Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout > >> > >> Richard Hills Hashmat Ali > >> NORTH SOUTH > >> 1NT(1) 2H (2) > >> 2S (3) 3S (4) > >> ? > >> > >> (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major > >> (2) transfer to spades > >> (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit > >> (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch > >> noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West > >> > >> You, Richard Hills, hold: > >> > >> J93 > >> Q953 > >> AJT9 > >> A5 > >> > >> What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? > > 4S, but I would pass nonvul. > > > > The way I interpret the auction, partner has shown > > a mild invitation with six spades. With a "good" invitation, he > > just just bid 4S. I have three spades > > and a ruffing value in clubs. I do not have a spade top, > > thus I expect that we have to lose a spade trick to establish spades. > > > > I consider 3NT, but I deem it an LA that might be suggested by the little > subtle twitch. > > > > AG : notice that the standard for disallowing a bid is that the > suggestion must be obvious. Agree. I wrote "Might be suggested" intentionally. ;-) I also agree that pass, 3NT, and 4S have to be considered. > Hardly the case here. > If YT has twitched, the four most probable reasons would be, in > decreasing order : > > a) sore back (doesn't sugget anything, as I won't have to play the > contract) > b) having placed a spade in the clubs or a club in the spades (the > former suggests bidding 3NT or passing, the latter suggests bidding 4S) > c) hay fever (doesn't suggest anything) > d) forgot the weak NT (suggests passing) Well, you'd have to have been there. I mean, did he twitch on the alert, before bidding 3S, or after bidding 3S but before LHO bid, or some time after 3S when it might have been too late to change the call? Maybe he wanted to bid 3H or 3NT rather than 3S? Maybe he wanted to bid 4S rather than 3S? Very hard to divine the twitch from Richard's short writeup. My own experience is that in such scenarios the player usually does not have the sixth spade. If he even has spades, rather than hearts. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 21 01:29:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:29:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Newspaper sub-editors ain't what they use to be. They no longer correct a reporter's malapropism of "prevaricate" to "procrastinate", nor do they correct "flaunt" to "flout". Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout Richard Hills Hashmat Ali NORTH SOUTH 1NT(1) 2H (2) 2S (3) 3S (4) ? (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major (2) transfer to spades (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West You, Richard Hills, hold: J93 Q953 AJT9 A5 What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : notice that the standard for disallowing a bid is that >the suggestion must be obvious. Richard Hills: Incorrect. The Law 16B1(a) word "demonstrably" is not a synonym of the word "obviously". For example, Euclid gave a non-obvious _demonstation_ that the square on the hypotenuse is always equal to the sums of the squares on the other two sides. Thomas Dehn: >Maybe he wanted to bid 4S rather than 3S? > >Very hard to divine the twitch from Richard's short writeup. Richard Hills: A key point. Since I have partnered Hashmat for two millennia I _know_ what Hashmat's twitch demonstrably suggests. But even if East-West had noticed the twitch, so even if they had summoned the Director, the Director would have to _deduce_ on the balance of probabilities what the twitch demonstrably suggested. A matter of philosophy is that I _know_ Hashmat must hold a maximum for his 3S invite so I _know_ that raising to 4S is probably a score of +620, and I _know_ that gaining that +620 will not attract a Director call, let alone an adverse ruling. (Indeed, all other tables reached the spade game; perhaps some of them did so via unintentional infractions of Law 73C.) Herman De Wael (quoted out of context): >...Now I have a choice. I could ... and end up with a bad >score; or I could chose not to ... and end up with the same >score as all my opponents - and then instruct the TD ... so that he can punish me ... Now I happen to believe that it is >very hard for a TD to penalize this infraction ... Richard Hills: At the table I avoided a Law 73C infraction by reaching into my bidding box and flaunting a Pass card. I did not follow Herman De Wael's suggestions, which seem to be -> 1. Intentionally infract a rule of the game 2. Summon the Director against oneself 3. Expect a better score from the Director than the score gained at the table by intentionally obeying the rule because De Wael suggestion 1. is contrary to 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 Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 21 02:23:23 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:23:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAC03C8.5050500@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >But most would understand 4S as being at least mildly preemptive, >which would make the pass nonforcing. True, but irrelevant. Logical alternatives should not be analysed in accordance with most systems, but in accordance with the actual system. Law 16B1(b) "...using the methods of the partnership...". 1S - (Pass) - 4S = preemptive in most systems 1S - (Pass) - 4S = a two-way meaning in the Ali-Hills system, either preemptive or balanced strength with no interest in slam The technical advantage of the Ali-Hills agreement is that the opponents have to guess whether failing to bid loses a double game swing, or guess whether bidding loses a penalty of 800. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Apr 21 00:21:18 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:21:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAEA303.80201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >> AKJT763 >> T5 >> A76 >> 2 Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >Few Acol players would have answered 4S over 1C on this hand. Richard Hills: And rightly so, since in Acol a spade slam could be missed. But Ali-Hills were using the Acol principles of "when in doubt, bid one more" and "bid what you think you can make", NOT the Acol system. Opposite a 2C opening which was limited to 10-14 hcp and denied a second 4-card suit, Hashmat Ali correctly judged that a spade slam was unlikely and that there were advantages in immediately bidding 4S. (For example, if Hashmat had chosen an artificial game force relay of 2D, I might have artificially bid spades first, and the informative relay auction may have resulted in 4S being defeated by the killing opening lead of a diamond through dummy's ace.) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 21 09:03:25 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:03:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAFD6BD.3020908@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > because De Wael suggestion 1. is contrary to Law 72B1: > > "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if > there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." > One of the worst laws in the book, IMO. Because what is the penalty if one breaks it? The prescibed penalty? or something more? And how do you determine that the player broke the law intentionally? Mind-reading? In the case of the dWS, if either me or Alain are caught acting in this manner, we can be deemed to have infracted some law (which one? only the Beijing interpretation, which is strictly speaking not a law, so L72B1 can be argued not to apply). So you might stick us with an additional penalty. But any other player, who would act in exactly the same manner, can use the following two excuses: 1) I thought my partner was right; 2) I did not know of the Beijing interpretation and was following L20F5. How can that player ever be ruled against? And if you then rule against me or Alain, that sounds like ruling against us because we are Belgians, and (although perhaps justifiable) that sounds like racism to me. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 21 11:05:32 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:05:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8B201CC8A3BE43F391B11E35E974E86A@Thain> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <4DB01B29.5080901@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/04/2011 1:29, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Newspaper sub-editors ain't what they use to be. They no > longer correct a reporter's malapropism of "prevaricate" to > "procrastinate", nor do they correct "flaunt" to "flout". > > Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches > but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale > > Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout > > Richard Hills Hashmat Ali > NORTH SOUTH > 1NT(1) 2H (2) > 2S (3) 3S (4) > ? > > (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major > (2) transfer to spades > (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit > (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch > noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West > > You, Richard Hills, hold: > > J93 > Q953 > AJT9 > A5 > > What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : notice that the standard for disallowing a bid is that >> the suggestion must be obvious. > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. The Law 16B1(a) word "demonstrably" is not a > synonym of the word "obviously". For example, Euclid gave a > non-obvious _demonstation_ that the square on the hypotenuse is > always equal to the sums of the squares on the other two sides. Was that Euclid ?? Anyway, if you want to place it on the field of propositional logic, then I''d like to answer that two opposite suggestions can't both be demonstrable. Whence, if there are several possible explanations for partner's attitude, which point into different directions, none demonstrates anything. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Apr 21 13:57:29 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:57:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DB01BA9.70000@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/04/2011 2:23, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> But most would understand 4S as being at least mildly preemptive, >> which would make the pass nonforcing. > True, but irrelevant. Logical alternatives should not be analysed > in accordance with most systems, but in accordance with the actual > system. Law 16B1(b) "...using the methods of the partnership...". > > 1S - (Pass) - 4S = preemptive in most systems > > 1S - (Pass) - 4S = a two-way meaning in the Ali-Hills system, > either preemptive or balanced strength with no > interest in slam > > The technical advantage of the Ali-Hills agreement is that the > opponents have to guess whether failing to bid loses a double > game swing, or guess whether bidding loses a penalty of 800. AG : absolutely true. The technical disadvantages include being faced with such problems. Which brings another question : shouldn't partner act over 5D, to tell you that his bid was strong ? (forget about winning 5S if it wasn't) From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Apr 21 17:56:51 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:56:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAFD6BD.3020908@skynet.be> References: <4DAFD6BD.3020908@skynet.be> Message-ID: [Herman] In the case of the dWS, if either me or Alain are caught acting in this manner, we can be deemed to have infracted some law (which one? only the Beijing interpretation, which is strictly speaking not a law, so L72B1 can be argued not to apply). So you might stick us with an additional penalty. But any other player, who would act in exactly the same manner, can use the following two excuses: 1) I thought my partner was right; 2) I did not know of the Beijing interpretation and was following L20F5. How can that player ever be ruled against? [Nigel] No excuse for breaking the law; but an argument for - Amending the text of the law-book in place, where necessary. - Reclassifying unenforceable "laws" as "proprieties" . The long-term solution is to simplify and clarify all the laws until the best directors can understand and enforce them. [Herman] And if you then rule against me or Alain, that sounds like ruling against us because we are Belgians, and (although perhaps justifiable) that sounds like racism to me. [Nigel] :) :) :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Apr 22 17:22:05 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:22:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] about agreements Message-ID: <4DB19D1D.6090209@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, One simple (or not so simple) question about agreements : North explains South's bid as A. In due time (before the lead or after the deal), South says that it was B, adding "It's in your system notes. I was surprised but didn't object". North answers : "that's a typo ; of course we play A". Are N/S deemed to have (had) any agreement, and which one, and how do you rule ? Thank you for the advice. Alain From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 17:59:08 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:59:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] about agreements In-Reply-To: <4DB19D1D.6090209@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DB19D1D.6090209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: If I'm satisfied that (A) there was damage AND (B) South continued the auction as if the meaning were B AND (C) N/S exchange is not a charade... I would chose to rule mis-explanation and encourage them to get their story straight going forward. Collins On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hi all, > > One simple (or not so simple) question about agreements : > > North explains South's bid as A. > In due time (before the lead or after the deal), South says that it was > B, adding "It's in your system notes. I was surprised but didn't object". > North answers : "that's a typo ; of course we play A". > > Are N/S deemed to have (had) any agreement, and which one, and how do > you rule ? > > > Thank you for the advice. > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110422/1a0357b8/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 24 11:04:51 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:04:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] This week's birthday. Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <694eadd40909061349k609280b6x577fd72718619f32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:25 AM, wrote: > Adam Wildavsky, first thoughts: > > >>>The normal way to judge whether a BIT was likely is to examine the > >>>hand held by the player alleged to have hesitated. > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >>The normal way to judge whether a BIT occurred is to question the > >>players at the table. > > Adam Wildavsky, second thoughts: > > >When faced with conflicting testimony, the usual way to judge whether > >a BIT was likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to > >have hesitated. > > Richard Hills: > > When faced with conflicting testimony, the Best way to judge Any set > of disputed facts is to question the players at the table. > > The Law 85 criterion is "balance of probabilities", Not "guilty until > proved innocent". > > Adam Wildavsky, third thoughts: > > ??? > Sorry to take a while to reply, though I doubt it's a BLML record. Might not be a record even for me! Your proposal sounds tautological to me. The premise is that the testimony conflicts. Do you propose to resolve that conflict with further questions? If you do, more power to you. Suppose, however, that after further questioning the conflict remains. The question I was answering was exactly the one I expressed -- how to proceed in the face of conflicting testimony. In that case I still suggest looking for evidence from the cards themselves, if any is to be had. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110425/c13b44d5/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Apr 25 18:55:09 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:55:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40909061349k609280b6x577fd72718619f32@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001d01cc0369$8a82f770$9f88e650$@no> I don't know the ACBL attitude on this type of rulings but where I direct we consider it a serious error by the director if he during the auction or play periods looks at cards from a closed hand involved in a situation and then gives a ruling. By doing that he provides the other three players at the table with essential information about this hand. The worst case scenario is that this information may even make normal play on the board impossible. Maybe you should take a look at law 85B? From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Adam Wildavsky Sent: 25. april 2011 18:38 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:25 AM, wrote: Adam Wildavsky, first thoughts: >>>The normal way to judge whether a BIT was likely is to examine the >>>hand held by the player alleged to have hesitated. Gordon Rainsford: >>The normal way to judge whether a BIT occurred is to question the >>players at the table. Adam Wildavsky, second thoughts: >When faced with conflicting testimony, the usual way to judge whether >a BIT was likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to >have hesitated. Richard Hills: When faced with conflicting testimony, the Best way to judge Any set of disputed facts is to question the players at the table. The Law 85 criterion is "balance of probabilities", Not "guilty until proved innocent". Adam Wildavsky, third thoughts: ??? Sorry to take a while to reply, though I doubt it's a BLML record. Might not be a record even for me! Your proposal sounds tautological to me. The premise is that the testimony conflicts. Do you propose to resolve that conflict with further questions? If you do, more power to you. Suppose, however, that after further questioning the conflict remains. The question I was answering was exactly the one I expressed -- how to proceed in the face of conflicting testimony. In that case I still suggest looking for evidence from the cards themselves, if any is to be had. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110425/f0386684/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Mon Apr 25 19:22:29 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:22:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001d01cc0369$8a82f770$9f88e650$@no> References: <694eadd40909061349k609280b6x577fd72718619f32@mail.gmail.com> <001d01cc0369$8a82f770$9f88e650$@no> Message-ID: In the ACBL, as elsewhere, we generally consider adjusting the score only after completion of a deal. I hope I did not imply otherwise. On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > I don?t know the ACBL attitude on this type of rulings but where I direct > we consider it a serious error by the director if he during the auction or > play periods looks at cards from a closed hand involved in a situation and > then gives a ruling. By doing that he provides the other three players at > the table with essential information about this hand. The worst case > scenario is that this information may even make normal play on the board > impossible. Maybe you should take a look at law 85B? > > > > *From:* blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *On Behalf > Of *Adam Wildavsky > *Sent:* 25. april 2011 18:38 > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:25 AM, wrote: > > Adam Wildavsky, first thoughts: > > >>>The normal way to judge whether a BIT was likely is to examine the > >>>hand held by the player alleged to have hesitated. > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >>The normal way to judge whether a BIT occurred is to question the > >>players at the table. > > Adam Wildavsky, second thoughts: > > >When faced with conflicting testimony, the usual way to judge whether > >a BIT was likely is to examine the hand held by the player alleged to > >have hesitated. > > Richard Hills: > > When faced with conflicting testimony, the Best way to judge Any set > of disputed facts is to question the players at the table. > > The Law 85 criterion is "balance of probabilities", Not "guilty until > proved innocent". > > Adam Wildavsky, third thoughts: > > ??? > > > > Sorry to take a while to reply, though I doubt it's a BLML record. Might > not be a record even for me! > > > > Your proposal sounds tautological to me. The premise is that the testimony > conflicts. Do you propose to resolve that conflict with further questions? > If you do, more power to you. Suppose, however, that after further > questioning the conflict remains. The question I was answering was exactly > the one I expressed -- how to proceed in the face of conflicting > testimony. In that case I still suggest looking for evidence from the cards > themselves, if any is to be had. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110425/3a999242/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 27 02:22:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:22:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] This week's birthday. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Grattan EndicottSkype: grattan.endicott >************************************* >"I have learnt from my mistakes and >I feel sure that, with practice, I can >repeat them." > ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) >********************************************* > >Happy half century Herman. Yes, congratulations on your semicentenary, Herman. However, an even more significant birthday for a bridge player is one's 52nd birthday, since there are 52 cards in a pack. Ergo, I will engage in birthday one-upmanship on Sunday 1st May. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 27 02:32:04 2011 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:32:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] This week's birthday. References: Message-ID: <1B25278E40564BBC99C0A958EFAA58C6@Anne> Penblwydd Hapus Herman. 50 mlwydd oed. (I remember it well :-)))) Anne Please visit my web site. http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:04 AM Subject: [BLML] This week's birthday. Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Anyway, if you want to place it on the field of propositional >logic, then I'd like to answer that two opposite suggestions >can't both be demonstrable. Whence, if there are several possible >explanations for partner's attitude, which point into different >directions, none demonstrates anything. Richard Hills: Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout Richard Hills Hashmat Ali NORTH SOUTH 1NT(1) 2H (2) 2S (3) 3S (4) ? (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major (2) transfer to spades (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West What bidding box card did you flaunt, and why? =+= Sure from a generic-to-any-partner demonstration the twitch could be associated with not only a maximum invite but also a minimum invite and even a non-bridge reason such as a back spasm. But over two millennia my observations of Hashmat's twitches have reached the level of implicit partnership understandings contrary to Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays." So the illegal implicit partnership understanding was that Hashmat was inviting with a hand with which others might force to game. A typical example would be: A87654 KJ6 Q65 9 opposite my: J93 Q953 AJT9 A5 Hashmat did indeed hold this typical example. The king of diamonds was offside, and there was a singleton king of spades, but the QT2 of spades were onside, thus virtue was not immediately rewarded. +170 instead of +620. Indeed, one point of this thread was how easy it would have been for me to commit an unnoticeable infraction to assist in achieving my heart's desire -- finishing in one of the top three places in the ACT Open Teams Trials, and thereby becoming part of the team- of-six representing the ACT at the Interstate Championship. (My previous efforts in the Trials had given me the nickname Richard the Fourth, since I had finished in fourth place on no less than eight occasions.) Miles Vorkosigan: "Some prices are just too high, no matter how much you may want the prize. The one thing you can't trade for your heart's desire is your heart." Richard Hills: Which is the other point of this thread. Sometimes those who have read the Lawbook gain a score advantage (e.g. by electing to accept an opponent's insufficient bid). But I totally resile from the apparent argument by Herman De Wael that because Belgian ignoramuses gain a score advantage due to unintentional infractions of particular rules, Belgian blml savants should thereby be permitted to intentionally infract those particular rules to create an equal contest. That is, sometimes knowing the rules must necessarily later lead to a score disadvantage. Is one's heart's desire winning? Or is an illegal win contrary to the rules losing one's heart? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110427/c08e25fb/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 27 10:10:57 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:10:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] This week's birthday. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DB7CF91.40807@skynet.be> I knew Richard had it in for me, but this is crazy! ;) Happy birthday to you too, Richard. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Grattan Endicott> Skype: grattan.endicott >> ************************************* >> "I have learnt from my mistakes and >> I feel sure that, with practice, I can >> repeat them." >> ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) >> ********************************************* >> >> Happy half century Herman. > > Yes, congratulations on your semicentenary, Herman. > > However, an even more significant birthday for a > bridge player is one's 52nd birthday, since there are > 52 cards in a pack. Ergo, I will engage in birthday > one-upmanship on Sunday 1st May. :-) :-) > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3599 - Release Date: 04/26/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 27 10:37:29 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:37:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] John Probst Message-ID: <4DB7D5C9.2070309@skynet.be> is back! Here is a picture of John playing in last weekend's Easter congress. With very little sight, but full mental capabilities - he outscored me easily (and he'll say that's not a great accomplishment). -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: maddog.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36214 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110427/480a0bda/attachment-0001.jpg From blml at arcor.de Wed Apr 27 12:04:18 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:04:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] John Probst In-Reply-To: <4DB7D5C9.2070309@skynet.be> References: <4DB7D5C9.2070309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1327831867.231093.1303898658696.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > is back! > Here is a picture of John playing in last weekend's Easter congress. > With very little sight, but full mental capabilities - he outscored me > easily (and he'll say that's not a great accomplishment). This is excellent news, Herman. Thanks a lot for letting us know. Thomas From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Apr 27 12:18:41 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:18:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case : Butler vs Ximps In-Reply-To: References: <8B201CC8A3BE43F391B11E35E974E86A@Thain> Message-ID: <201104271018.p3RAIg8S007860@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> > >Richard Hills: > >Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but >using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale cut Perhaps I should be discussing this with John Probst. I don't know what an Olympic datum is, but when I used to do Butler scoring, I would drop 1 or 2 scores at each end and round off the average to a possible score and call that the datum. To my horror I found that if I used a Howell movement, this procedure could give an adventitious advantage to a particular pair of up to 3 IMP due to luck in seating. I now use a method invented by Herman which fractionates the IMP scale and I only ever cross imp. This gets as close as possible to averaging each board to zero (I believe). The only reason that I can see for using a datum is that the players can compare their score to a "possible score". BTW Happy birthday to Herman. My question is how come both he and Richard made it to 50 without being strangled? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110427/2008a1c6/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 27 13:34:27 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:34:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case : Butler vs Ximps In-Reply-To: <201104271018.p3RAIg8S007860@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <8B201CC8A3BE43F391B11E35E974E86A@Thain> <201104271018.p3RAIg8S007860@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4DB7FF43.9010009@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > > BTW Happy birthday to Herman. My question is how > come both he and Richard made it to 50 without > being strangled? > Probably because we live on opposite sides of the planet - that has certainly prevented us from strangling each other! :) -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Apr 27 13:35:36 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:35:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] This week's birthday. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DB7CF91.40807@skynet.be> References: <4DB7CF91.40807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3BE54028DA6548329A48F9CEE0E8EAA9@G3> Herman & Richard Many Happy Returns From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 27 13:36:42 2011 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:36:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] John Probst References: <4DB7D5C9.2070309@skynet.be> Message-ID: Excellent news indeed Herman - thanks! I agree with John though - who else did he beat? :-))))))))) Anne Please visit my web site. http://www.baa-lamb.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:37 AM Subject: [BLML] John Probst > is back! > Here is a picture of John playing in last weekend's Easter congress. > With very little sight, but full mental capabilities - he outscored me > easily (and he'll say that's not a great accomplishment). > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 28 18:58:27 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:58:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands Message-ID: Maybe Law 41 should say that all of dummy's cards must be showing? It doesn't quite have it. Today dummy spread his hand face up with one card hidden behind another. I think a player who was stuck in that situation might construct and believe the argument that it isn't in the laws and hence isn't an irregularity. I can argue that they don't mention every obvious thing, but L41D is mostly obvious things. Or maybe the laws were very thoughtfully written and a hidden card isn't an irregularity. That's not my guess, but I don't know. "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with the lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards decaler. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. From svenpran at online.no Thu Apr 28 21:14:49 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:14:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Maybe Law 41 should say that all of dummy's cards must be showing? > > It doesn't quite have it. Today dummy spread his hand face up with one > card hidden behind another. I think a player who was stuck in that > situation might construct and believe the argument that it isn't in the > laws and hence isn't an irregularity. I can argue that they don't > mention > every obvious thing, but L41D is mostly obvious things. > > Or maybe the laws were very thoughtfully written and a hidden card > isn't > an irregularity. That's not my guess, but I don't know. > > > "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of > him > on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank > with > the lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing > lengthwise towards decaler. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. Can dummy's cards be considered "spread in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits" if any of his 13 cards are not visible? From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Fri Apr 29 01:10:15 2011 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:10:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> Message-ID: <53F4B04A40FC41EAB165E8257BB406C7@mikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:14 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands On Behalf Of Robert Frick > Maybe Law 41 should say that all of dummy's cards must be showing? > > It doesn't quite have it. Today dummy spread his hand face up with one > card hidden behind another. I think a player who was stuck in that > situation might construct and believe the argument that it isn't in the > laws and hence isn't an irregularity. I can argue that they don't > mention > every obvious thing, but L41D is mostly obvious things. > > Or maybe the laws were very thoughtfully written and a hidden card > isn't > an irregularity. That's not my guess, but I don't know. > > > "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of > him > on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank > with > the lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing > lengthwise towards decaler. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. Can dummy's cards be considered "spread in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits" if any of his 13 cards are not visible? No that is my understanding - "spreads his hand" seems as clear as any three words in the 93 Laws. Not some of his cards but his hand. No good if he drops one in his beer or sticks two together with raspberry jam or hides one up his sleeve. Surely no one can argue with this. Ah, I forgot this is Blml, this thread will probably go on for a month - sigh Mike Amos _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Apr 29 03:12:10 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:12:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Butler scoring Message-ID: <4DBA106A.3090501@nhcc.net> I seem to have deleted Mike's(?) message, but we've discussed Butler versus cross-IMPs many times before. Butler has several serious disadvantages, the worst of which is that you can do worse in the event if you do better on a particular deal. (You move the datum, benefiting a competitor, while the IMP scale gives your score no increase. Herman's web site has an example where a scoring correction "in their favor" cost a pair several thousand dollars. Of course this sort of thing will go unnoticed if there's no scoring correction, but it happens nonetheless.) Other disadvantages: boards with bimodal score distributions are overemphasized, and seating can arbitrarily add or subtract IMPs. Some of these disadvantages can be mitigated by clever adjustments, including Herman's fractional IMP scale, but for serious competition, just use cross-IMPs. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Apr 29 15:05:10 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:05:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:14:49 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> Maybe Law 41 should say that all of dummy's cards must be showing? >> >> It doesn't quite have it. Today dummy spread his hand face up with one >> card hidden behind another. I think a player who was stuck in that >> situation might construct and believe the argument that it isn't in the >> laws and hence isn't an irregularity. I can argue that they don't >> mention >> every obvious thing, but L41D is mostly obvious things. >> >> Or maybe the laws were very thoughtfully written and a hidden card >> isn't >> an irregularity. That's not my guess, but I don't know. >> >> >> "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of >> him >> on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank >> with >> the lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing >> lengthwise towards decaler. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. > > Can dummy's cards be considered "spread in front of him on the table, > face > up, sorted into suits" if any of his 13 cards are not visible? I think there is nothing wrong with how I began this posting: "Today dummy spread his hand face up with one card hidden behind another." Was that jarring to anyone? So I think the answer is yes, cards can be spread out even if one is hidden. "Spread out" seems to contrast to "being in a pile" or "all together". So I have no trouble saying that people are spread out all over the world even if some are on top of each other. Put another way, if the law said "completely spread out" I wouldn't have taken that as redundant. Of course, if you know how you want to read the law, you can interpret "spread out" as meaning what you want it to mean. Then we have a good law that we think says exactly what we want it to think. But I am pretty sure that the dummy who was rectified for hiding his card yesterday would have read it in the way he wanted. It is nice when the law prevents arguments. And someone just reading the law might wonder, perhaps the lawmakers intended no rectification for a hidden card in dummy.