From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Dec 1 00:04:57 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:04:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ED6B699.7050008@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111130/7d7e9a6c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 1 00:25:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:25:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Instructing the Director (was Law 64...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1322181217.42100.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills -> "...the Laws are poorly cross-referenced. I have a Modest Proposal that what are now Law 84 (Rulings on Agreed Facts) and Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) gain their own Chapter in the revised and reformatted 2018 Lawbook." Anda Enciu -> I can rest now :) (almost ... A revised wording/adding an extra paragraph to an existing law is easier to do and accept than introducing a new chapter.) 2007 Law 85B -> If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. 2018 hypothetical revised wording/adding an extra sentence Law 85B -> If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling (that will permit play to continue, if play has not already ceased). But Law 66D may apply to undetermined facts about tricks taken and/or about a disputed irregularity. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111130/068fef8a/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 1 00:47:51 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:47:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4ED6B0C2.2080600@comcast.net> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> <4ED6B0C2.2080600@comcast.net> Message-ID: <004d01ccafba$79c010f0$6d4032d0$@online.no> > Robert Park > On 11/30/11 8:50 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Eric Landau > >> On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>> Perhaps "a terrifying thing" because the philosophy of many Laws in > >>> the Lawbook (for example Law 13A - Incorrect Number of Cards - > >>> Director Deems Normal Play) is to strive for a normal result, and a > >>> double-shot by definition strives for an abnormal result. > >>> > >> To say that "a double shot by definition strives for an abnormal result" > > is > >> looking at it backwards. A double shot, by definition, can only > >> occur > > when > >> the ability to achieve a "normal" result has already been precluded > >> by an opponent's infraction. > > [Sven Pran] Oh no. > > > > A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have > > said to > > himself: > > Opponents have committed an infraction. > > I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall request > > a rectification for the infraction. > > > > _ > > Egad! Are you realy proposing to punish a player for what he "may have said > to himself?" What are you...the thought police? > > I personally think a player should be able to talk to himself all he wants, so > long as it does not intrude on others. [Sven Pran] He may of course talk to himself as much as he likes. I used this phrase to illustrate a player who apparently, more or less intentionally tries to use an opponent's infraction as an opportunity to try out a "wild or gambling" line of auction and/or play which, if it succeeds will give him a great bonus and if it fails he can always cry "wolf" and ask for a redress because of opponent's infraction. Any director worth his salt should be aware of, and not fall for this tactics which is what we call "double shot" (with one of the shots being SEWOG). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 1 01:12:17 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:12:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills, prior post -> Perhaps "a terrifying thing" because the philosophy of many Laws in the Lawbook (for example Law 13A - Incorrect Number of Cards - Director Deems Normal Play) is to strive for a normal result, and a double-shot by definition strives for an abnormal result. Eric Landau -> To say that "a double shot by definition strives for an abnormal result" is looking at it backwards. A double shot, by definition, can only occur when the ability to achieve a "normal" result has already been precluded by an opponent's infraction. Richard Hills, clarifying post -> Of all experts, accurate prognostications are given only by weather forecasters and bridge experts (which is why economists did not predict the Global Financial Crisis, merely postdicted it). Ergo, suppose an expert accurately predicts that her vulnerable side will make 10 tricks in spades 49% of the time, 11 tricks in spades 49% of the time and 12 tricks in spades 2% of the time. That expert also accurately predicts that the non-vulnerable opponents will make 9 tricks in hearts 100% of the time. The expert duly and legally bids to 4S. The opponents unduly and illegally sacrifice in 5H. If the expert now bids 5S, that is not a double shot, despite 5S having a 49% chance of failure. If the expert now doubles 5H, that is not a double shot, despite the 51% chance that +300 is a less-than-optimal result in the circumstances. But if the expert bids the double shot slam, gaining an abnormal result of +13 imps 2% of the time, for the other 98% of the time the Laws state that the offending side is awarded -620 (49% of the time) or -650 (the other 49% of the time), but that the non-offending double shot expert is awarded less than the reciprocal score as a punishment for _unsuccessfully_ striving for an abnormal result. For what it is worth, I believe that Duplicate Bridge should join other sports in legalising double shots, as it is anomalous that successful double shots are fully legal, with only unsuccessful double shots penalised. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111201/da120883/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 1 01:29:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:29:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01b601ccaf3c$9de5bf80$d9b13e80$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren -> [snip] And in direct response to you I would say any action taken by 25% of the field, or even 10% for that matter, can never be labeled a serious error. Richard Hills -> At last weekend's Aussie Grand National Teams, 50% of the experts present -- myself included -- repeatedly committed the "Papa the Greek Serious Error", which is defined as being an expert who is so clever that one false cards with a singleton. If I had restrained my Papa pseudo-cleverness (e.g. Passing instead of -800, or supporting pard's suit for +640 instead of bidding my own suit for -100) then my Canberra 2 team would have had a more respectable finish than our actual 26th place. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111201/1d18c327/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 1 01:40:30 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:40:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Nige1] if you misquote a post in order to contradict it, Richard, it is normal to append "FYP" (fixed your post). [Richard Hills] Yes, again Nigel Guthrie erroneously assumes that the _only_ solution to Directors' failures to understand a rule is to abolish that rule, when a logical alternative is instead "to draw some guidelines" which clarify to Directors the application of that rule. [Nigel] I suppose that that may work if the WBF funds a course that club-directors must attend, with an exam they must pass. [Richard Hills] Plus in my opinion Nigel Guthrie begs the question, petitio principii, that a Nigella scrapping of "some rules" would not "alter the fundamental nature of the game". In my opinion almost without exception Nigel's proposals over the past decade would have had unintended consequences which would indeed have altered the fundamental nature of the game had they been adopted. [Nigel] I beg no questions. I concede that a simpler game would be more boring for directors. I argue that players would understand the rules better. Hence complying with the rules would be easier. Therefore, rulings would be more consistent and more comprehensible. Thus, my contention is that Bridge with simpler rules would be more enjoyable for players. The basic challenge would be the same. The current laws have unintended consequences. Simpler rules would also have drawbacks. A realistic goal is improvement -- not perfection. Many of the simplifications that I advocate were proposed by others. For example - Sven Pran suggested that "a player should summarise what partner's calls tell you about his hand, without reference to the contents of his own hand." (I paraphrase). - Richard Hills suggested that when a player does not know the systemic meaning of partner's call, then the director should allow the partner to explain the systemic meaning of his own call. - and so on. In such cases, my contribution has been confined to suggesting that - Such sensible protocols be enshrined in the law-book for all directors to follow - and - - (in some simple cases) to query the necessity of involving a director. [Richard Hills] The one suggestion by Nigel Guthrie which in my opinion has merit is to amend the 2007 Law 66D to this hypothetical 2018 Law 66D -> After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected by request of a player (not a spectator) to settle an uneasiness in that player's mind about the possibility of an irregularity, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle another player's cards. If, after such a request has been made, a player mixes cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side. [Nige1] I don't like the idea of several hands face-up at the same time. Therefore I didn't say "played and unplayed" cards. I think the law should say that at the end of play, you should be allowed to ask another player to face his hand and that player must comply with your request -- but only one hand (or possibly one trick) at a time. [Richard Hills] Yes, I know that in Nigel Guthrie's ideal nation "request of a player (not a spectator)" would be replaced by "request of a player and/or a spectator". [Nige1] Another straw-man bites the dust :( Richard shouldn't keep attributing daft opinions to others that he knows they don't hold. Richard's own opinions are scary enough :) From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 1 02:14:14 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:14:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <004d01ccafba$79c010f0$6d4032d0$@online.no> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> <4ED6B0C2.2080600@comcast.net> <004d01ccafba$79c010f0$6d4032d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4ED6D4E6.6020705@comcast.net> >> : > [Sven Pran] He may of course talk to himself as much as he likes. I used > this phrase to illustrate a player who apparently, more or less > intentionally tries to use an opponent's infraction as an opportunity to try > out a "wild or gambling" line of auction and/or play which, if it succeeds > will give him a great bonus and if it fails he can always cry "wolf" and ask > for a redress because of opponent's infraction. > > Any director worth his salt should be aware of, and not fall for this > tactics which is what we call "double shot" (with one of the shots being > SEWOG). > > "more or less intentionally" does not hack it as a criterion. I think a director needs at least moderately strong evidence of intentionality. This is what I was reacting to in your original posting. So the challenge seems to be to define "moderately strong." Wishy-washy law and wishy-washy guidance to directors won't do here. Some form of clear guideline is needed. Does that put me on Ton's side? --bp From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 1 03:11:49 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:11:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> Message-ID: <4ED6E265.2060803@nhcc.net> On 11/25/2011 6:05 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > As usual Marvin computes it in total-points scoring. I really do not know > why. He seems to suggest that is way the ACBL does it. I've never seen a score computed in total points in the ACBL. We don't have weighted scores, of course, so the subject Law is the only one that can raise the issue, unless there's one I'm missing. We do see a lot of avg+/avg- adjustments, sometimes combined with assigned scores for the other side! From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Dec 1 06:31:46 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:31:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: "Jerry Fusselman" writes: >David Grabiner writes: >> But you do not need to rule that an action is a double shot in order to deny >> adjustment; you need only rule that the damage is self-inflicted. My standard >> example: >> >> Both vulnerable, IMPs >> S W N E >> 1S P 2S ..P >> P X 3S X >> AP >> >> 3S went down three for -800. North held a 3=3=3=4 6-count. >> >> The TD ruled that pass was a LA to West's double, and adjusted the E-W score >> to >> +200 in 2S undoubled, which would have been the result without the >> infraction. >.> >> But he ruled that the 3S call denied N-S the right to any redress; N-S were >> not >> damaged by West's double (which would have given them -130 had North passed >> and >> East bid 3D, better than the -200 they would have had without the double). >> Rather, N-S were damaged by North's abnormal 3S bid. Whether North bid it as >> a >> deliberate double shot, because he made an error such as having the CQ in >> with >> his spades, or just because he didn't know how to bid in a competitive >> auction, >> he does not get an adjustment. Thus the score was +200 to E-W and -800 to >> N-S. >> (In fact, I don't think that North took a deliberate double shot here, as it >> is >> dangerous; if West has x Kxxx QJxx KJxx or similar, then West's double was >> automatic and North will have to live with the results of 3S.) >> >Thanks for the example. A few questions: >Is there any difference between a double shot and your term, >"deliberate double shot"? I was trying to limit my discussion to >double shots, but you admit that this example is not exactly a double >shot. A lot of people talk about double shots, but I just want to >know what they mean---and if any definition is possible. There is no distinction. A double shot is a deliberate attempt take an abnormal action, in the expectation that the TD will adjust your score if it doesn't work out. >I have a feeling that you would label 3S as a serious error (rather >than a double shot)---am I right? Yes. >In this example, are you saying that pass instead of double by West >was an LA, and that West's double was an infraction---and that the >infraction should have led to +140, a lower score? Yes, although it would be +130 in 3D making four as the cards lie. >If West had chosen to pass rather than double, would double have been >an LA for him? And would you have lowered E-W's score to +140? No, because East's slow pass demonstrably suggested doubling over passing. Since pass was not suggested by the UI, it is allowed. >About the abnormal 3S bid, I wonder what percent of the time it works >out well in practice, perhaps by pushing them into the wrong strain, >or too high, or to miss game. These are possible good results from >3S. On this auction (the opponents made a balancing double), 3S cannot do any of those things; the opponents won't compete to the 4-level. 3S can only gain more than 1 IMP if 3S makes and the opponents could have made a contract at the 3-level, and will lose 5 IMPs or more if nobody can make a contract at the 3-evel or if some contract at the 3-level gets doubled. North, with something like Kxx xxx xxx QJxx, has no reason to expect 3S to make unless partner can bid 3S himself. >We cannot be overly influenced by -800 and our own bidding styles >in judging whether or not 3S is a serious error. Suppose it works out >well 25% of the time in games among their peers---would you still feel >justified in calling it a serious error? The issue is not whether 3S works out 25% of the time, but whether the player's peers would consider it a reasonable action. If 25% of North's peers would make the call, then it isn't a serious error. But on this auction, North has nothing more than he showed previously, and South is still there to bid 3S if he thinks 3S is right opposite what North has already shown. If North held Kxxx xxx xxx QJx, then while I still wouldn't choose to bid 3S, I also wouldn't consider it a serious error; the Law of Total Tricks says that North should compete with a 9-card fit. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 1 15:11:10 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:11:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ED78AFE.2010808@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/11/2011 22:36, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Hans van Staveren -> > > For a good discussion about serious errors, and how they are ruled > much too frequently see the piece from Ton Kooijman at the latest EBL > course. > > _http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/2010Course/Serious%20Error.pdf_ > > Ton Kooijman, Introduction -> > > [snip] > Generally speaking, TDs and ACs are reluctant to compensate a bad > score after an irregularity, not sufficiently protecting the innocent > side. It seems necessary to draw some guidelines. > [snip] > > Ton Kooijman, Conclusion -> > > TDs and Appeals Committees tend to have a strict judgment on actions > by the non-offending side. They do not succeed in imagining the > problem the innocent side is confronted with. > > The laws allow the non-offending side to make errors -- even big ones > - without affecting the adjusted score to be awarded. > AG : and rightly so. It has been said that an above-average player makes two errors per deal. Most of these errors don't lead to a bad score. Why should it be different after an opponent's infraction ? > > One possibility is to accept that a serious error has been committed > if it is not considered to be an option even by a few players of > comparable strength. > AG : and even so ... those players will find it as difficult as TDs to "imagine the problem", especially as one will often forget to transmit them all (false) information on which the decision at the table was taken. > > > An erroneous consideration that a serious error has been committed > would create damage which is not compensated by an adjusted score > (subsequent damage: the difference between the expected result after > the infraction and the actual result). > > We might adopt another principle, especially for the non-offending > side in defence: if it is possible to compose a realistic opponent's > or partner's hand, using the information available at that moment, > with which actual play could be justified, the case should not be > considered to constitute a serious error. > > AG : I very much prefer that one. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111201/b672db96/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 1 15:17:13 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:17:13 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com><023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl><33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl><2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: [David Grabiner] Both vulnerable, IMPs S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P X 3S X AP 3S went down three for -800. North held a 3=3=3=4 6-count. The TD ruled that pass was a LA to West's double, and adjusted the E-W score to +200 in 2S undoubled, which would have been the result without the infraction. But he ruled that the 3S call denied N-S the right to any redress; N-S were not damaged by West's double (which would have given them -130 had North passed and East bid 3D, better than the -200 they would have had without the double). Rather, N-S were damaged by North's abnormal 3S bid. Whether North bid it as a deliberate double shot, because he made an error such as having the CQ in with his spades, or just because he didn't know how to bid in a competitive auction,he does not get an adjustment. Thus the score was +200 to E-W and -800 to N-S. [Nigel] IMO: A problem with this law is that what is a serious error is a matter of judgement. It depends on the strength of the field, but to an ordinary player like me, this example illustrates neither a double-shot nor a serious error. David can persuade me that it ?s an error but not a *serious* error. Anyway, this is the kind of ?on-the-cusp? case that I hoped Ton Kooijman would address in his commentary. This uncertainty leads to wildly inconsistent rulings. Under current law, players are growing accustomed to inconsistent rulings. But there are other problems with this particular law. For example, few players or directors understand how to compute or comprehend the resulting score adjustments. The main problem however, is that there is no need whatsoever for the law to be concerned with serious errors or double-shots. That leads to an obvious solution. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 1 16:51:35 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:51:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Sven Pran] > > A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have > said to himself: > Opponents have committed an infraction. > I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall > request a rectification for the infraction. > > [Eric Landau] > > In real life, to "request a rectification for the infraction" may > well indeed be a "wild or gambling action". It gives you a "double > shot", all right: a shot at getting rectification, and a shot at not > getting it. If my opponents can't tell the difference between > "request" and "get", they're welcome to try their luck at my table. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > I consider the point Eric makes here to be similar to my statement > that there is no such thing as a pure double shot---any such attempt > would be intrinsically risky. > > Questions for Eric in case he will indulge me: > > Are your standards for ruling Serious Error relatively close to > Ton's---i.e., much less frequent than we see in the ACBL? Yes. L12C1(b) has its origin in an article by Edgar Kaplan that appeared in The Bridge World in the early 1970s, in which he first proposed the distinction between "subsequent" and "consequent" damage, and asserted that redress should be given only for the latter. I replied to his article with a letter giving a variety of somewhat marginal examples, effectively asking for sufficient detail to apply his new concept to actual cases. He responded in print in a lengthy TBW article (subsequently reprinted in "How Would You Rule?", a collection of reprints) analyzing each of my examples in detail. I continue to this day to treat that article as the definitive word on the subject, and recommend that anyone concerned with this issue read it (although I confess to having no idea where it might be found, isn't everything on line these days?). They will discover that not just Ton, but Edgar too, sets a much higher standard than what we see in the ACBL these days. To summarize the difference in one word, Kaplan consisently wrote that the "connection between the infraction and the damage" could only be broken by an "egregious" error, which is a far stronger adjective than "serious". > Do you recall cases that you find fall short of Serious Error, but are > "wild or gambling", and of these, are several of them "double shots"? Yes, and no, respectively. The pervasive attitude on the part of ACBL players of my acquaintance (which has been reflected rather obviously in my previous posts on this subject) is that anyone who thinks he can predict with confidence how their appeal will ultimately be ruled on by the time it gets throught the TD/screening/ AC gamut is just nuts. That makes deliberate "double shots" of the sort Sven describes a non-problem in my milieu. What typically happens is that a pair confronted with an opponent's infraction will not know whether they will be damaged as a result, but will sensibly assume that if they are to be damaged, it will be because the infraction has already put their opponents in a winning position which will leave them with few or no matchpoints, and thus take what appears to be a "wild or gambling" action in an attempt to recover those presumptively already-lost matchpoints. But those actions aren't really "wild or gambling" in context; they are sound tactics if you believe you are getting no matchpoints anyhow otherwise. They are "protected" not by any assumption that if the tactic fails their score will be reversed in adjudication, but by the realization that if it fails it won't cost them anything. This is how you're supposed to play, particularly at matchpoints. > Is this area of TFLB another one of those cases where "knowing your > customers" comes in handy---where directors should try to maintain a > mental list of those players capable of perpetrating a double shot, > and those who are not? There are a few individuals playing the game so egotistical and arrogant as to believe (often, sadly, based on prior successes) that they can sufficiently browbeat any committee into ruling in their favor in practically any circumstance. These are responsible for the rare cases of concern to Sven -- they can convince themselves, "Opponents have committed an infraction; I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall request a rectification for the infraction *and surely get it*." They represent a problem that goes well beyond concerns over L12C1(b), but the folks who matter do indeed, for the most part, know who they are. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Dec 1 16:58:25 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:58:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4ED7A421.5060009@aol.com> Could anyone knowing where this material might be found (Kaplan's article(s) please inform me through blml? Thanks, JE Am 01.12.2011 16:51, schrieb Eric Landau: > On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> [Sven Pran] >> >> A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have >> said to himself: >> Opponents have committed an infraction. >> I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall >> request a rectification for the infraction. >> >> [Eric Landau] >> >> In real life, to "request a rectification for the infraction" may >> well indeed be a "wild or gambling action". It gives you a "double >> shot", all right: a shot at getting rectification, and a shot at not >> getting it. If my opponents can't tell the difference between >> "request" and "get", they're welcome to try their luck at my table. >> >> [Jerry Fusselman] >> >> I consider the point Eric makes here to be similar to my statement >> that there is no such thing as a pure double shot---any such attempt >> would be intrinsically risky. >> >> Questions for Eric in case he will indulge me: >> >> Are your standards for ruling Serious Error relatively close to >> Ton's---i.e., much less frequent than we see in the ACBL? > Yes. L12C1(b) has its origin in an article by Edgar Kaplan that > appeared in The Bridge World in the early 1970s, in which he first > proposed the distinction between "subsequent" and "consequent" > damage, and asserted that redress should be given only for the > latter. I replied to his article with a letter giving a variety of > somewhat marginal examples, effectively asking for sufficient detail > to apply his new concept to actual cases. He responded in print in a > lengthy TBW article (subsequently reprinted in "How Would You Rule?", > a collection of reprints) analyzing each of my examples in detail. I > continue to this day to treat that article as the definitive word on > the subject, and recommend that anyone concerned with this issue read > it (although I confess to having no idea where it might be found, > isn't everything on line these days?). They will discover that not > just Ton, but Edgar too, sets a much higher standard than what we see > in the ACBL these days. > > To summarize the difference in one word, Kaplan consisently wrote > that the "connection between the infraction and the damage" could > only be broken by an "egregious" error, which is a far stronger > adjective than "serious". > >> Do you recall cases that you find fall short of Serious Error, but are >> "wild or gambling", and of these, are several of them "double shots"? > Yes, and no, respectively. The pervasive attitude on the part of > ACBL players of my acquaintance (which has been reflected rather > obviously in my previous posts on this subject) is that anyone who > thinks he can predict with confidence how their appeal will > ultimately be ruled on by the time it gets throught the TD/screening/ > AC gamut is just nuts. That makes deliberate "double shots" of the > sort Sven describes a non-problem in my milieu. > > What typically happens is that a pair confronted with an opponent's > infraction will not know whether they will be damaged as a result, > but will sensibly assume that if they are to be damaged, it will be > because the infraction has already put their opponents in a winning > position which will leave them with few or no matchpoints, and thus > take what appears to be a "wild or gambling" action in an attempt to > recover those presumptively already-lost matchpoints. But those > actions aren't really "wild or gambling" in context; they are sound > tactics if you believe you are getting no matchpoints anyhow > otherwise. They are "protected" not by any assumption that if the > tactic fails their score will be reversed in adjudication, but by the > realization that if it fails it won't cost them anything. This is > how you're supposed to play, particularly at matchpoints. > >> Is this area of TFLB another one of those cases where "knowing your >> customers" comes in handy---where directors should try to maintain a >> mental list of those players capable of perpetrating a double shot, >> and those who are not? > There are a few individuals playing the game so egotistical and > arrogant as to believe (often, sadly, based on prior successes) that > they can sufficiently browbeat any committee into ruling in their > favor in practically any circumstance. These are responsible for the > rare cases of concern to Sven -- they can convince themselves, > "Opponents have committed an infraction; I'll try a gamble and if it > works then fine, otherwise I shall request a rectification for the > infraction *and surely get it*." They represent a problem that goes > well beyond concerns over L12C1(b), but the folks who matter do > indeed, for the most part, know who they are. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 1 17:05:47 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:05:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4ED7A421.5060009@aol.com> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> <4ED7A421.5060009@aol.com> Message-ID: <1B6D002E-4779-432B-ABCA-10672CA95D45@mac.com> On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Could anyone knowing where this material might be found (Kaplan's > article(s) please inform me through blml? Thanks, JE Eric's letter, and Kaplan's response, are available at thanks to David Stevenson. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 1 17:36:08 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:36:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:31 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > "Jerry Fusselman" writes: > >> About the abnormal 3S bid, I wonder what percent of the time it works >> out well in practice, perhaps by pushing them into the wrong strain, >> or too high, or to miss game. These are possible good results from >> 3S. > > On this auction (the opponents made a balancing double), 3S cannot > do any of > those things; the opponents won't compete to the 4-level. 3S can > only gain more > than 1 IMP if 3S makes and the opponents could have made a contract > at the > 3-level, and will lose 5 IMPs or more if nobody can make a contract > at the > 3-evel or if some contract at the 3-level gets doubled. North, > with something > like Kxx xxx xxx QJxx, has no reason to expect 3S to make unless > partner can bid > 3S himself. That is an excellent analysis of the position, which may seem totally obvious to a player of David's caliber, especially when replying to a BLML post as opposed to when choosing a call under pressure at the table. But is the failure of an ordinary player to perform such an analysis on the spur of the moment really a sufficiently egregious error to justify denying redress for an opponent's infraction? Not in my book. > If North held Kxxx xxx xxx QJx, then while I still wouldn't choose > to bid 3S, I > also wouldn't consider it a serious error; the Law of Total Tricks > says that > North should compete with a 9-card fit. "Non-serious" errors do exist. They're actually a lot more common than "serious" ones. It is lunacy to think that we can draw such a fine line so precisely that the difference between a 4-3-3-3 and an otherwise identical 3-3-3-4 can be the difference between a reasonable bid and an egregious error. It is precisely this lunacy that all too frequently affects ACBL ACs, some of whose working definition of "serious error" seems to be "a call that three out of five of us wouldn't ever make". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 1 18:02:20 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:02:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/12/2011 17:36, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:31 AM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> "Jerry Fusselman" writes: >> >>> About the abnormal 3S bid, I wonder what percent of the time it works >>> out well in practice, perhaps by pushing them into the wrong strain, >>> or too high, or to miss game. These are possible good results from >>> 3S. >> On this auction (the opponents made a balancing double), 3S cannot >> do any of >> those things; the opponents won't compete to the 4-level. 3S can >> only gain more >> than 1 IMP if 3S makes and the opponents could have made a contract >> at the >> 3-level, and will lose 5 IMPs or more if nobody can make a contract >> at the >> 3-evel or if some contract at the 3-level gets doubled. North, >> with something >> like Kxx xxx xxx QJxx, has no reason to expect 3S to make unless >> partner can bid >> 3S himself. > That is an excellent analysis of the position, which may seem totally > obvious to a player of David's caliber, especially when replying to a > BLML post as opposed to when choosing a call under pressure at the > table. But is the failure of an ordinary player to perform such an > analysis on the spur of the moment really a sufficiently egregious > error to justify denying redress for an opponent's infraction? Not > in my book. > >> If North held Kxxx xxx xxx QJx, then while I still wouldn't choose >> to bid 3S, I >> also wouldn't consider it a serious error; the Law of Total Tricks >> says that >> North should compete with a 9-card fit. > > "Non-serious" errors do exist. They're actually a lot more common > than "serious" ones. It is lunacy to think that we can draw such a > fine line so precisely that the difference between a 4-3-3-3 and an > otherwise identical 3-3-3-4 can be the difference between a > reasonable bid and an egregious error. It is precisely this lunacy > that all too frequently affects ACBL ACs, some of whose working > definition of "serious error" seems to be "a call that three out of > five of us wouldn't ever make". > > AG : a simple criteron : if you're asking yourself whether it's an egregious error, then it isn't. Such an error (or horror) should be so plain as to dissipate any doubt very quickly. Also, remember that a system may call for a bid that you (or somebody else) would consider plain wrong. For example, they might have forgotten to define a good sequence for that very hand, so they have to do with a very imperfect one. What Europeans would think of the contortions Americans can invent with strong one-suited hands would probably contain the word "absurd". Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 1 22:45:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 08:45:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1B6D002E-4779-432B-ABCA-10672CA95D45@mac.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert -> Eric's letter, and Kaplan's response, are available at < http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm> thanks to David Stevenson. Richard Hills -> Welcome back to blml, Ed. Your pithy and useful observations have been sorely missed by me. Edgar Kaplan on Serious Error varying according to the class of player -> but what if his error is, say, to draw trumps too soon, so that he no longer can ruff a loser? Here you might tailor your ruling to the skill of the declarer. An inexperienced club player might make this error one time in three, so for him to go down in five hearts is a fairly normal consequence of the infraction. In contrast, if Norman Kay were declarer, a revoke would have a higher frequency than this sort of error. The direct link between infraction and damage would be broken by what would be, for him, a bizarre accident. His damage would be "subsequent" not "consequent". In a sense this discriminates against good players, but the principle is sound: the poorer the player, the more protection he needs from the Laws: the better the player, the more he is expected to protect himself. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111201/5831e40a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 1 23:19:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 09:19:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Eric Landau, parallel Law 12C1(b) thread -> [snip] There are a few individuals playing the game so egotistical and arrogant as to believe (often, sadly, based on prior successes) that they can sufficiently browbeat any committee into ruling in their favor in practically any circumstance. [snip] Imp Pairs Dlr: East Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Sponsor...Hills.....Gallus....Ali ---.......---.......1NT(1)....2D (2) 3C........3D........Pass......3H 3S........4H........Pass......Pass ? (3) (1) 11-14 (2) 9-14, unspecified 6-card major (or a strong 5-card major which "looks like" a 6-card major) (3) Sponsor enquired about meaning of 3D; Ali replied, "Undiscussed, could be natural." You, Sponsor, hold: QT43 T 74 KQJT98 What actions do you take? What other actions do you consider taking? Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111201/90691105/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Dec 2 00:42:11 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:42:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <1B6D002E-4779-432B-ABCA-10672CA95D45@mac.com> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> <4ED7A421.5060009@aol.com> <1B6D002E-4779-432B-ABCA-10672CA95D45@mac.com> Message-ID: <4ED810D3.1000302@aol.com> I tried to access this site and was informed that the server could not be found. Is there some sort of error in the site info? JE Am 01.12.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Reppert: > On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Could anyone knowing where this material might be found (Kaplan's >> article(s) please inform me through blml? Thanks, JE > Eric's letter, and Kaplan's response, are available at thanks to David Stevenson. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Dec 2 00:45:32 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:45:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <1B6D002E-4779-432B-ABCA-10672CA95D45@mac.com> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> <4ED7A421.5060009@aol.com> <1B6D002E-4779-432B-ABCA-10672CA95D45@mac.com> Message-ID: <4ED8119C.8010508@aol.com> Ignore my last email. Tried again to access the site and this time it was possible. JE Am 01.12.2011 17:05, schrieb Ed Reppert: > On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Could anyone knowing where this material might be found (Kaplan's >> article(s) please inform me through blml? Thanks, JE > Eric's letter, and Kaplan's response, are available at thanks to David Stevenson. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 2 02:10:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 12:10:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4ED6D4E6.6020705@comcast.net> Message-ID: Law 12C1(b) -> If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only. Robert Park -> [Sven Pran's] "more or less intentionally" does not hack it as a criterion. I think a director needs at least moderately strong evidence of intentionality. [snip] Richard Hills -> In my opinion, neither Sven nor Robert are hacking the correct criteria. Law 12C1(b) refers to "serious error", _not_ to "intentional serious error". And Law 12C1(b) refers to "wild ... action", _not_ to "intentional wild ... action". On the other hand, "gambling" does carry the implication of intentionally rolling the dice to achieve an unlikely top. Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> gamble, v.i. Play games of chance for (esp. high) money stake; (fig.) risk much for great gain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111202/f9cbb66a/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Dec 2 02:53:04 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:53:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81B10B1D-6345-41F5-B7AC-7639D1F8D2B0@mac.com> On Dec 1, 2011, at 4:45 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Welcome back to blml, Ed. Your pithy and useful observations have been sorely missed by me. > Thanks, Richard. Not sure I'll be posting much. We shall see. Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111202/ef289ceb/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 2 05:52:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:52:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> persiflage, n. Light irony, raillery. Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another example of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. Richard Hills -> The mechanical error Law 25A is a necessary complication. Yet another example of a Law that adds much value and should be retained in the 2017 Lawbook. Okay, now that Nigel Guthrie and I have (yet again) taken diametrically opposite positions, in my opinion the debate should be resolved by pro-and-con reasoning, not by persiflage. Nigel Guthrie's Con -> [snip] The laws should not give special dispensation to plausible liars and rationalisers, while penalizing honest players. [snip] Richard Hills' Pro -> I reject the persiflage implication that a significant number of Duplicate Bridge players are plausible liars. Furthermore, I reject the substantive argument that Law 25A benefits plausible liars. As two wildly contrasting Directors -- John (MadDog) Probst and Robert Frick -- have observed, it is easy to determine the veracity of a player seeking a Law 25A ruling. The WBF Laws Committee indicative example is also instructive in giving Law 25A guidance to an inexperienced Director. WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 10 -> The committee discussed what is understood by a ?mechanical error? in using a bidding box. The term applies to the case where the player intends to call ?x? and thinks ?x? but his fingers inadvertently pull out ?y? from the bidding box. As an example: North.....East......South.....West ...............1H........Pass......2C........Pass ...............Pass where 2C shows Hearts support and is invitational. This Pass by North was most probably intentional (i.e. not mechanical) and so can not be changed. Richard Hills' Pro (continued) -> This is a classic indicative example, with versions often appearing in Directors' accreditation examinations. North has a minimum opening hand, thinks "I will Pass pard's game invitation," then The horror! The horror! a realisation dawns that South's apocalyptic invasion / invitation was artificial. Not a mechanical mispull from the bidding box, but rather an intentional call based upon an unintentional error. Apocalypse Now (1979 film) -> "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111202/50765d38/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 2 07:59:06 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 07:59:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005901ccb0bf$e21a5380$a64efa80$@nl> The law 25A does not mention mechanical. It says unintended. Mechanical is how it is usually ruled. But let?s look at it from the following point of view. A human being is a giant machine. Inside this machine are two types of mission control. 1) The bridge playing conscious brain. 2) The part that controls movement. Say the bridge playing part decides to bid 1C. Then it tells the movement part to pick the 1C card and put it on the table. The latter part involves many extremely complicated things. 1) Looking where the bidding box is 2) Recognizing the 1C card 3) Steering the hand to it 4) Picking the card 5) Pulling it out 6) Depositing on the table Now in my opinion, but I am usually very lonely there, anything that goes wrong in these six actions counts as being unintentional, since it is unintentional from the bridge playing mission control part. For example, I have something with colours. Pass is green, so is 1C. In the past I mixed these up in both directions. Was it my bridge brain that made a mistake? No, it was the recognizing part, since translating from both pass and 1C the instruction my bridge brain sends to my movement brain somehow includes the concept green. So, I think that in these two cases I would be able to claim law 25A iso 25B. Now there are countries that say 25A is only for a miss pull, and then stipulate that a miss pull is only possible from the same compartment of the bidding box. So my pass vs 1C error in their explanation will never be allowed as 25A. I think the latter point of view is wrong, while of course recognizing that figuring out where in a players brain things went wrong is close to impossible. Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111202/b7c82a11/attachment-0001.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 08:07:28 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Berre_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 08:07:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/12/1 : > Eric Landau, parallel Law 12C1(b) thread -> > > [snip] > There are a few individuals playing the game so egotistical and arrogant as > to believe (often, sadly, based on prior successes) that they can > sufficiently browbeat any committee into ruling in their favor in > practically any circumstance. > [snip] > > Imp Pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Sponsor...Hills.....Gallus....Ali > ---.......---.......1NT(1)....2D (2) > 3C........3D........Pass......3H > 3S........4H........Pass......Pass > ? ?(3) > > (1) 11-14 > (2) 9-14, unspecified 6-card major (or a strong 5-card major which "looks > like" a 6-card major) > (3) Sponsor enquired about meaning of 3D; Ali replied, "Undiscussed, could > be natural." > > You, Sponsor, hold: > > QT43 > T > 74 > KQJT98 > > What actions do you take? Pass. > What other actions do you consider taking? None. The bidding has let me describe my hand pretty welll. Partner should know enough to be in a position to make an informed decision over 4H. I respect his decision to defend undoubled. > > Kind regards, > > Richard Hills > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Dec 2 09:37:06 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 09:37:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <81B10B1D-6345-41F5-B7AC-7639D1F8D2B0@mac.com> References: <81B10B1D-6345-41F5-B7AC-7639D1F8D2B0@mac.com> Message-ID: <4ED88E32.9060206@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111202/d7e8e395/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Dec 2 12:09:39 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 12:09:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1143702785.1852007.1322824179356.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau, parallel Law 12C1(b) thread -> > > [snip] > There are a few individuals playing the game so egotistical and arrogant as > to believe (often, sadly, based on prior successes) that they can > sufficiently browbeat any committee into ruling in their favor in > practically any circumstance. > [snip] > > Imp Pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Sponsor...Hills.....Gallus....Ali > ---.......---.......1NT(1)....2D (2) > 3C........3D........Pass......3H > 3S........4H........Pass......Pass > ? (3) > > (1) 11-14 > (2) 9-14, unspecified 6-card major (or a strong 5-card major which "looks > like" a 6-card major) > (3) Sponsor enquired about meaning of 3D; Ali replied, "Undiscussed, could > be natural." > > You, Sponsor, hold: > > QT43 > T > 74 > KQJT98 > > What actions do you take? Pass. I've told my story. I've made a non-forcing 3C bid, and then I showed my spades. > What other actions do you consider taking? None. At favorable, I might consider 5C. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 2 14:04:04 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:04:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ED8CCC4.2060700@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/12/2011 23:19, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Eric Landau, parallel Law 12C1(b) thread -> > > [snip] > There are a few individuals playing the game so egotistical and > arrogant as to believe (often, sadly, based on prior successes) that > they can sufficiently browbeat any committee into ruling in their > favor in practically any circumstance. > [snip] > > Imp Pairs > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Sponsor...Hills.....Gallus....Ali > ---.......---.......1NT(1)....2D (2) > 3C........3D........Pass......3H > 3S........4H........Pass......Pass > ? (3) > > (1) 11-14 > (2) 9-14, unspecified 6-card major (or a strong 5-card major which > "looks like" a 6-card major) > (3) Sponsor enquired about meaning of 3D; Ali replied, "Undiscussed, > could be natural." > > You, Sponsor, hold: > > QT43 > T > 74 > KQJT98 > > What actions do you take? > AG : I feel I described my hand fairly well (I suppose 3C was "to play"), whence I'd pass without fear of missing anything obvious. > What other actions do you consider taking? > AG : I guess some would defend in 5C. I agree with Mollo, when he says that "the good soldier isn't the one who dies for his country, but the one who forces the guy opposite to die for his", warning against sacrificing. Also, partner, who accepted letting them play, might have enough in the reds to make 4H difficult. He might well hold 3442. Perhaps a better question would be "what do you lead ?" If we're confident in partner's judgment, wr might lead a trump. Best regards, Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111202/5b0fc63b/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Dec 2 15:28:41 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:28:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Nige1] [snip] Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another example of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. [/snip] [Richard Hills] The mechanical error Law 25A is a necessary complication. Yet another example of a Law that adds much value and should be retained in the 2017 Lawbook. Okay, now that Nigel Guthrie and I have (yet again) taken diametrically opposite positions, in my opinion the debate should be resolved by pro-and-con reasoning, not by persiflage. [Nige2] If you manage that it will be a first for you, Richard :) [Nige1 Con] [snip] The laws should not give special dispensation to plausible liars and rationalisers, while penalizing honest players.[/snip] [Richard Hills' Pro] I reject the persiflage implication that a significant number of Duplicate Bridge players are plausible liars. Furthermore, I reject the substantive argument that Law 25A benefits plausible liars. As two wildly contrasting Directors -- John (MadDog) Probst and Robert Frick -- have observed, it is easy to determine the veracity of a player seeking a Law 25A ruling. The WBF Laws Committee indicative example is also instructive in giving Law 25A guidance to an inexperienced Director. [Nige2] If Richard consults his famous pocket dictionary he will find that "persiflage" means "light banter" but I was serious: a significant number of players do claim dubious "mechancal errors" and in the UK, directors normally believe them. I don't think it's so easy for directors, even of the John Probst calibre. Examples appended [WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 10] The committee discussed what is understood by a ?mechanical error? in using a bidding box. The term applies to the case where the player intends to call ?x? and thinks ?x? but his fingers inadvertently pull out ?y? from the bidding box. As an example: North.....East......South.....West ...............1H........Pass......2C........Pass ...............Pass where 2C shows Hearts support and is invitational. This Pass by North was most probably intentional (i.e. not mechanical) and so can not be changed. [Richard Hills' Pro (continued)] This is a classic indicative example, with versions often appearing in Directors' accreditation examinations. North has a minimum opening hand, thinks "I will Pass pard's game invitation," then The horror! The horror! a realisation dawns that South's apocalyptic invasion / invitation was artificial. Not a mechanical mispull from the bidding box, but rather an intentional call based upon an unintentional error. [Nige2] In practice, directors rule inconsistently. Mechanical error laws are as problematic for directors as for players. Most Bridge-players can supply many real-life examples. 1. In a national event, In a competitive auction, an opponent pulled out a pass card . When I also passed, the opponent claimed "mechanical error" and the director allowed him to correct his pass to 2N. On this occasion, it may well have been a mechanical error; but many such mistakes are not. In my experience, (normally honest) players usually claim mechanical error, and seem to have no difficulty convincing the director. 2. In the same event, partner passed when he should have doubled an opponent's bid. He immediately noticed his error and called the director. She asked him "At the moment you pulled out the pass card, are you sure you meant to make a different call". An honest man, he could not be certain, so he was ruled against. This is the other side of the coin - punishing the (relatively) honest. 3. Suppose, a leading professional player is playing with a sponsor in a close final against a team of amateurs. He makes the wrong bid by mistake but he notices it immediately. He calls the director to ask if he may correct it. - I doubt that one such player in ten would admit to a "slip of the mind". - Suppose the decision is a match-decider. If the top pro claims "slip of the hand" , I pity the director/committee who rules "slip of the mind". My experience coincides with Mollo's. Bridge players are a cross-section of society. Bridge-players are as prone to peccadillos as society at large. Outside bridge, many people rationalise all kinds of infractions. For example: exceeding speed limits, falsifying tax-returns, and breaking marriage vows. Most get away with it. If Richard believes that people don a new persona, when they play bridge. I think he is living in an ivory-tower - or on Uluru :) If you want to continue this dialogue, Richard, then please try to address some of the points I make, without cunning "snips". From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 2 16:08:22 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:08:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ED8E9E5.6000809@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/12/2011 15:28, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Nige1] > [snip] Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another > example of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. > [/snip] > [Richard Hills] > The mechanical error Law 25A is a necessary complication. Yet another > example of a Law that adds much value and should be retained in the 2017 > Lawbook. > Okay, now that Nigel Guthrie and I have (yet again) taken diametrically > opposite positions, in my opinion the debate should be resolved by > pro-and-con reasoning, not by persiflage. > > [Nige2] > If you manage that it will be a first for you, Richard :) > > [Nige1 Con] > [snip] The laws should not give special dispensation to plausible liars and > rationalisers, while penalizing honest players.[/snip] > [Richard Hills' Pro] > I reject the persiflage implication that a significant number of Duplicate > Bridge players are plausible liars. Furthermore, I reject the substantive > argument that Law 25A benefits plausible liars. > As two wildly contrasting Directors -- John (MadDog) Probst and Robert > Frick -- have observed, it is easy to determine the veracity of a player > seeking a Law 25A ruling. The WBF Laws Committee indicative example is also > instructive in giving Law 25A guidance to an inexperienced Director. > > [Nige2] > If Richard consults his famous pocket dictionary he will find that > "persiflage" means "light banter" but I was serious: a significant number of > players do claim dubious "mechancal errors" and in the UK, directors > normally believe them. I don't think it's so easy for directors, even of the > John Probst calibre. Examples appended > > [WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 10] > The committee discussed what is understood by a ?mechanical error? in using > a bidding box. The term applies to the case where the player intends to call > ?x? and thinks ?x? but his fingers inadvertently pull out ?y? from the > bidding box. > As an example: North.....East......South.....West > ...............1H........Pass......2C........Pass > ...............Pass > where 2C shows Hearts support and is invitational. This Pass by North was > most probably intentional (i.e. not mechanical) and so can not be changed. > [Richard Hills' Pro (continued)] > This is a classic indicative example, with versions often appearing in > Directors' accreditation examinations. North has a minimum opening hand, > thinks "I will Pass pard's game invitation," then The horror! The horror! a > realisation dawns that South's apocalyptic invasion / invitation was > artificial. Not a mechanical mispull from the bidding box, but rather an > intentional call based upon an unintentional error. > > [Nige2] > In practice, directors rule inconsistently. Mechanical error laws are as > problematic for directors as for players. Most Bridge-players can supply > many real-life examples. > > 1. In a national event, In a competitive auction, an opponent pulled out a > pass card . When I also passed, the opponent claimed "mechanical error" and > the director allowed him to correct his pass to 2N. On this occasion, it may > well have been a mechanical error; but many such mistakes are not. In my > experience, (normally honest) players usually claim mechanical error, and > seem to have no difficulty convincing the director. > > 2. In the same event, partner passed when he should have doubled an > opponent's bid. He immediately noticed his error and called the director. > She asked him "At the moment you pulled out the pass card, are you sure you > meant to make a different call". An honest man, he could not be certain, so > he was ruled against. This is the other side of the coin - punishing the > (relatively) honest. > > 3. Suppose, a leading professional player is playing with a sponsor in a > close final against a team of amateurs. He makes the wrong bid by mistake > but he notices it immediately. He calls the director to ask if he may > correct it. > - I doubt that one such player in ten would admit to a "slip of the mind". > - Suppose the decision is a match-decider. If the top pro claims "slip of > the hand" , I pity the director/committee who rules "slip of the mind". 4. Suppose that a player who holds a balanced 13-count opens 7C and states that he pulled the wrong bid. Would you dare to rule against him ? Yet, most slips of the finger are so strange as to be easily detectable. This one comes from forgetting that one is using a "down" type of bidding box. Also, a player who holds 7 hearts and a weak hand and pulls a double of a 1C opening can be deemed to have wanted to pull a Stop card. Now to the 2C example. It is a good example, of course, for who would have wanted to pass 2C ? But the player can't claim a mispull, mainly because "pass" and "2H" aren't from the same part of the bidding box. This will often be a good exclusion criterion. Perhaps the most difficult case is the insufficient mispull : did the played who pulled the 1NT card over their 2H bid pull the wrong card, or did he make an IB ? I wouldn't be shocked if some guideline said to consider the latter absent very strong evidence. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Sat Dec 3 09:33:02 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:33:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <2134623670.1879745.1322901182032.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Sven Pran] > > A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have > said to himself: > Opponents have committed an infraction. > I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall > request a rectification for the infraction. > > [Eric Landau] > > In real life, to "request a rectification for the infraction" may > well indeed be a "wild or gambling action". ?It gives you a "double > shot", all right: a shot at getting rectification, and a shot at not > getting it. ?If my opponents can't tell the difference between > "request" and "get", they're welcome to try their luck at my table. > > [Jerry Fusselman] > > I consider the point Eric makes here to be similar to my statement > that there is no such thing as a pure double shot---any such attempt > would be intrinsically risky. > > Questions for Eric in case he will indulge me: > > Are your standards for ruling Serious Error relatively close to > Ton's---i.e., much less frequent than we see in the ACBL? My standard for ruling a serious error is even higher than Ton's. I think to rule a serious error, the error has to be so obviously horrible that even a player weaker than the player who made the error usually would not make it. A revoke is a serious error. Sitting behind dummy's KJ with the AQ, declarer plays to the K, the defender drops the Q under the K. That is a serious error. Anything less blatant than that is not. Thomas From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 3 21:55:07 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:55:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> On 12/1/2011 12:02 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : a simple criteron : if you're asking yourself whether it's an > egregious error, then it isn't. Such an error (or horror) should be so > plain as to dissipate any doubt very quickly. I agree with this, and it seems Thomas does too. One of Ton's examples might show the difference: North has shown 12-14 HCP in the auction, and 12 of those points have been revealed in the play. Therefore South should see that North cannot hold the S-K. Ton says failing to realize this is "serious error." It might be so in, say, the Bermuda Bowl, but I don't think it should be so in any normal event. Vast numbers of ACBL AC's disagree with me, I'm afraid. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 4 01:33:51 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 11:33:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4ED8E9E5.6000809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills, prior post -> [snip] I reject the persiflage implication that a significant number of Duplicate Bridge players are plausible liars. [snip] Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] a significant number of players do claim dubious "mechanical errors" [snip] Sir Humphrey Appleby -> "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not appreciate the significance of 'significant'." Alain Gottcheiner -> [snip] Perhaps the most difficult case is the insufficient mispull: did the player who pulled the 1NT card over their 2H bid pull the wrong card, or did he make an IB? I wouldn't be shocked if some guideline said to consider the latter absent very strong evidence. Richard Hills, current post -> A few years ago I opened 1S and Hashmat Ali responded 1S. I immediately summoned the Director. In accordance with the just-published footnote to Law 25A, "A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error" (which was already standard practice at the Canberra Bridge Club then), my summoning of the Director did not impact on Hashmat's Law 25A criterion "without pause for thought". So the Chief Director of Australia ruled under Law 25A that Hashmat could change the mispull of 1S to the intended bidding card of 1NT (artificial game force relay). I disagree with Alain that a Director ruling under Law 25A should apply a high standard to putative insufficient mispulls but apply a low standard to putative sufficient mispulls, because ... WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 7 -> When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111204/c062e9e4/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Dec 4 03:56:33 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:56:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: > On 12/1/2011 12:02 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> AG : a simple criteron : if you're asking yourself whether it's an >> egregious error, then it isn't. Such an error (or horror) should be so >> plain as to dissipate any doubt very quickly. > > I agree with this, and it seems Thomas does too. One of Ton's examples > might show the difference: North has shown 12-14 HCP in the auction, and > 12 of those points have been revealed in the play. Therefore South > should see that North cannot hold the S-K. Ton says failing to realize > this is "serious error." It might be so in, say, the Bermuda Bowl, but > I don't think it should be so in any normal event. I find it hard to believe that this could be considered a serious error. If you are a good enough player to be expected to count your opponents' HCP, you are also a good enough player to allow for the possibility that a player downgraded a 15 count to 14 and opened it with a 12-14 point 1NT. A serious error in the play is a play that anyone who knows the basic principles of play will recognize as an error: forgetting to draw an outstanding trump, blocking a suit, under-ruffing, or not cashing a good trick. (Any of these can be a non-serious error in rare situations in which there is a possibly legitimate reason; a defender who fails to cash the setting trick because he does not see how it could go away and is afraid of squeezing partner out of the second undertrick has not made a serious error.) The same principle should apply for a serious error in the bidding: bidding the same values twice, passing a forcing bid, forgetting a partnership agreement, or overriding a decision which you have already left to partner. By this standard, my own example is a serious error because the player bid the same values twice, analogous to a rebid by a player who preempted: S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P X 3S X AP By bidding 2S, North showed 5-9 points and at least three spades, and a desire to play in spades. With a 3=3=3=4 6-count, North had already shown his entire hand with the 2S bid. If he had held a 4=3=3=3 hand, the fourth spade would be something he had not already shown, and 3S would not be a serious error. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 4 20:39:53 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 13:39:53 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP>, <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl>, <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com>, <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl>, <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP>, <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl>, <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl>, , <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos>, , , <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net>, <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net>,<392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 21:56:33 -0500 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite > > "Steve Willner" writes: > > > On 12/1/2011 12:02 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : a simple criteron : if you're asking yourself whether it's an > >> egregious error, then it isn't. Such an error (or horror) should be so > >> plain as to dissipate any doubt very quickly. > > > > I agree with this, and it seems Thomas does too. One of Ton's examples > > might show the difference: North has shown 12-14 HCP in the auction, and > > 12 of those points have been revealed in the play. Therefore South > > should see that North cannot hold the S-K. Ton says failing to realize > > this is "serious error." It might be so in, say, the Bermuda Bowl, but > > I don't think it should be so in any normal event. > > I find it hard to believe that this could be considered a serious error. If you > are a good enough player to be expected to count your opponents' HCP, you are > also a good enough player to allow for the possibility that a player downgraded > a 15 count to 14 and opened it with a 12-14 point 1NT. > > A serious error in the play is a play that anyone who knows the basic principles > of play will recognize as an error: forgetting to draw an outstanding trump, > blocking a suit, under-ruffing, or not cashing a good trick. (Any of these can > be a non-serious error in rare situations in which there is a possibly > legitimate reason; a defender who fails to cash the setting trick because he > does not see how it could go away and is afraid of squeezing partner out of the > second undertrick has not made a serious error.) > > The same principle should apply for a serious error in the bidding: bidding the > same values twice, passing a forcing bid, forgetting a partnership agreement, or > overriding a decision which you have already left to partner. > > By this standard, my own example is a serious error because the player bid the > same values twice, analogous to a rebid by a player who preempted: > S W N E > 1S P 2S ..P > P X 3S X > AP > By bidding 2S, North showed 5-9 points and at least three spades, and a desire > to play in spades. With a 3=3=3=4 6-count, North had already shown his entire > hand with the 2S bid. If he had held a 4=3=3=3 hand, the fourth spade would be > something he had not already shown, and 3S would not be a serious error. This protracted discussion of the Kaplan principle is strong evidence that the principle and the belief in it is not only absurd, but flummery. The proper standard derives from the Principle of Continuity which states that the connection of damage to an infraction remains until it is broken; together with its corollary which states that the once the connection of an infraction to its damage is broken, it remains broken. The proof that Kaplan is absurd needs only one example: Consider a hand where the limit is 2S. North has bid to 3H which has the expectation of going down at least one trick. Next E bids 3S, and when pushed the director rules that 3S was an UI infraction; and because the expectation that 3S goes down NS are better off as a consequence of the infraction and thus the connection of damage to the infraction is broken. The NOS did nothing to cause or break the connection to damage- the OS did. QED regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 4 22:48:41 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:48:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2134623670.1879745.1322901182032.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn -> [snip] Sitting behind dummy's KJ with the AQ, declarer plays to the K, the defender drops the Q under the K. That is a serious error. Anything less blatant than that is not. Richard Hills -> Declarer's RHO, the Rueful Rabbit, is about to be endplayed after winning the AQ, allowing declarer to score nine tricks in 3NT. But RR chokes on his cherry brandy, playing the queen under the king. With a bonus trick in the bag, declarer refuses to endplay RR with an ace RR obviously does not hold, and instead takes a sensible but losing line for a total of only eight tricks. Given that Rueful Rabbit's serious error was a will-o'-wisp that lured declarer into a bog, could it indeed be described as a serious error? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111204/d1b1ca46/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 4 22:52:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:52:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] If you want to continue this dialogue, Richard, then please try to address some of the points I make, without cunning "snips". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111204/ff19ad53/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Dec 5 00:00:39 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:00:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> Thomas Dehn writes: >Sitting behind dummy's KJ with the AQ, declarer plays to the K, the defender >drops the Q under the K. That is a serious error. Anything less blatant than >that is not. Richard Hills writes: >Declarer's RHO, the Rueful Rabbit, is about to be endplayed after winning the >AQ, >allowing declarer to score nine tricks in 3NT. But RR chokes on his cherry >brandy, >playing the queen under the king. With a bonus trick in the bag, declarer >refuses to >endplay RR with an ace RR obviously does not hold, and instead takes a sensible >but losing line for a total of only eight tricks. >Given that Rueful Rabbit's serious error was a will-o'-wisp that lured declarer >into >a bog, could it indeed be described as a serious error? If Papa would have made the same play at the other table, then it is not a serious error. This applies to all the examples (except infractions of law) we have discussed as serious errors; any bid or play which has a logical (even if not optimal) reason for making it by a player who was aware of the facts cannot be a serious error. If East blocks a suit on defense and should know he is doing it, preventing West from cashing the last round, that would normally be a serious error. But if the Rabbit blocks the suit, preventing the Hog from squeezing him on the last round, that is not a serious error. And if Karapet blocks the suit, preventing Papa from squeezing him on the last round on the distribution he expects but actually allowing the Walrus to make an unmakable contract, that is also not a serious error. If declarer forgets to draw an outstanding trump, that would normally be a serious error; if he does not draw West's last trump because he needs to keep a trump in dummy to endplay East, that is not a serious error even if the endplay fails because West ruffs something. If a player passes a forcing bid and plays a game-forcing auction in a part-score, that would normally be a serious error; if he guesses that, despite the force, he is in the last makable contract, that is not a serious error even if a game could be made. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 5 00:11:35 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:11:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 09:28:41 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > [snip] Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another > example of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the > law-book. > [/snip] > [Richard Hills] > The mechanical error Law 25A is a necessary complication. Yet another > example of a Law that adds much value and should be retained in the 2017 > Lawbook. > Okay, now that Nigel Guthrie and I have (yet again) taken diametrically > opposite positions, in my opinion the debate should be resolved by > pro-and-con reasoning, not by persiflage. > > [Nige2] > If you manage that it will be a first for you, Richard :) > > [Nige1 Con] > [snip] The laws should not give special dispensation to plausible liars > and > rationalisers, while penalizing honest players.[/snip] > [Richard Hills' Pro] > I reject the persiflage implication that a significant number of > Duplicate > Bridge players are plausible liars. Furthermore, I reject the substantive > argument that Law 25A benefits plausible liars. > As two wildly contrasting Directors -- John (MadDog) Probst and Robert > Frick -- have observed, it is easy to determine the veracity of a player > seeking a Law 25A ruling. The WBF Laws Committee indicative example is > also > instructive in giving Law 25A guidance to an inexperienced Director. > > [Nige2] > If Richard consults his famous pocket dictionary he will find that > "persiflage" means "light banter" but I was serious: a significant > number of > players do claim dubious "mechancal errors" and in the UK, directors > normally believe them. I don't think it's so easy for directors, even of > the > John Probst calibre. Examples appended > > [WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 10] > The committee discussed what is understood by a ?mechanical error? in > using > a bidding box. The term applies to the case where the player intends to > call > ?x? and thinks ?x? but his fingers inadvertently pull out ?y? from the > bidding box. > As an example: North.....East......South.....West > ...............1H........Pass......2C........Pass > ...............Pass > where 2C shows Hearts support and is invitational. This Pass by North was > most probably intentional (i.e. not mechanical) and so can not be > changed. > [Richard Hills' Pro (continued)] > This is a classic indicative example, with versions often appearing in > Directors' accreditation examinations. North has a minimum opening hand, > thinks "I will Pass pard's game invitation," then The horror! The > horror! a > realisation dawns that South's apocalyptic invasion / invitation was > artificial. Not a mechanical mispull from the bidding box, but rather an > intentional call based upon an unintentional error. > > [Nige2] > In practice, directors rule inconsistently. Mechanical error laws are as > problematic for directors as for players. Most Bridge-players can supply > many real-life examples. > > 1. In a national event, In a competitive auction, an opponent pulled out > a > pass card . When I also passed, the opponent claimed "mechanical error" > and > the director allowed him to correct his pass to 2N. On this occasion, it > may > well have been a mechanical error; but many such mistakes are not. In my > experience, (normally honest) players usually claim mechanical error, and > seem to have no difficulty convincing the director. > > 2. In the same event, partner passed when he should have doubled an > opponent's bid. He immediately noticed his error and called the > director. > She asked him "At the moment you pulled out the pass card, are you sure > you > meant to make a different call". An honest man, he could not be certain, > so > he was ruled against. This is the other side of the coin - punishing the > (relatively) honest. > > 3. Suppose, a leading professional player is playing with a sponsor in a > close final against a team of amateurs. He makes the wrong bid by > mistake > but he notices it immediately. He calls the director to ask if he may > correct it. > - I doubt that one such player in ten would admit to a "slip of the > mind". > - Suppose the decision is a match-decider. If the top pro claims "slip of > the hand" , I pity the director/committee who rules "slip of the mind". > > My experience coincides with Mollo's. Bridge players are a > cross-section of > society. Bridge-players are as prone to peccadillos as society at > large. > Outside bridge, many people rationalise all kinds of infractions. For > example: exceeding speed limits, falsifying tax-returns, and breaking > marriage vows. Most get away with it. If Richard believes that people > don a > new persona, when they play bridge. I think he is living in an > ivory-tower - > or on Uluru :) I think Nigel is ignoring the obvious cases of mispull. Allowing a correction makes the game much better. But right, players will lie. Lot's of them in my experience. And the more the director lets the players get away with it, the more who will lie. I think one blmler reported a club where they claimed mispull whenever they wanted to change their bid and the director always granted it and every one was in on the game. Perhaps the solution is not allow any claims of mechanical error when there is some reason to suspect otherwise. I think it is impossible now to acknowledge a pull from the wrong part of the box as being a mispull. Can it be a mispull if it is not an adjacent bid in the bidding box? Would it be that hard to systematically ban claims of mispull for Blackwood responses or people playing strange systems who plausibly forgot them? I think that would rule out most bogus claims and accept most legitimate claims. From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 5 00:30:18 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 00:30:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301ccb2dc$b043e2d0$10cba870$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > But right, players will lie. Lot's of them in my experience. And the more the > director lets the players get away with it, the more who will lie. I think one > blmler reported a club where they claimed mispull whenever they wanted to > change their bid and the director always granted it and every one was in on > the game. [...] [Sven Pran] We are apparently living in different worlds. My experience is that bridge players are generally very honest; they play the game as Gentlemen and Ladies. I agree with Robert that we need a different set of laws for cheats and liars, but in my environment that is not much of a problem. The few times we come across such players we treat them accordingly and that's it. Maybe our environment is more transparent; rest assured that cheats and liars here won't get away with it more than a couple of times at most. From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Dec 5 00:56:43 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:56:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP>, <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl>, <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com>, <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl>, <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP>, <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl>, <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl>, , <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos>, , , <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net>, <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net>, <392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> Message-ID: <4EDC08BB.8000209@comcast.net> On 12/4/11 2:39 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------- >> From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 21:56:33 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite >> >> "Steve Willner" writes: >> >>> On 12/1/2011 12:02 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>>> AG : a simple criteron : if you're asking yourself whether it's an >>>> egregious error, then it isn't. Such an error (or horror) should be so >>>> plain as to dissipate any doubt very quickly. >>> I agree with this, and it seems Thomas does too. One of Ton's examples >>> might show the difference: North has shown 12-14 HCP in the auction, and >>> 12 of those points have been revealed in the play. Therefore South >>> should see that North cannot hold the S-K. Ton says failing to realize >>> this is "serious error." It might be so in, say, the Bermuda Bowl, but >>> I don't think it should be so in any normal event. >> I find it hard to believe that this could be considered a serious error. If you >> are a good enough player to be expected to count your opponents' HCP, you are >> also a good enough player to allow for the possibility that a player downgraded >> a 15 count to 14 and opened it with a 12-14 point 1NT. >> >> A serious error in the play is a play that anyone who knows the basic principles >> of play will recognize as an error: forgetting to draw an outstanding trump, >> blocking a suit, under-ruffing, or not cashing a good trick. (Any of these can >> be a non-serious error in rare situations in which there is a possibly >> legitimate reason; a defender who fails to cash the setting trick because he >> does not see how it could go away and is afraid of squeezing partner out of the >> second undertrick has not made a serious error.) >> >> The same principle should apply for a serious error in the bidding: bidding the >> same values twice, passing a forcing bid, forgetting a partnership agreement, or >> overriding a decision which you have already left to partner. >> >> By this standard, my own example is a serious error because the player bid the >> same values twice, analogous to a rebid by a player who preempted: >> S W N E >> 1S P 2S ..P >> P X 3S X >> AP >> By bidding 2S, North showed 5-9 points and at least three spades, and a desire >> to play in spades. With a 3=3=3=4 6-count, North had already shown his entire >> hand with the 2S bid. If he had held a 4=3=3=3 hand, the fourth spade would be >> something he had not already shown, and 3S would not be a serious error. > This protracted discussion of the Kaplan principle is strong evidence that the principle and the belief in it is not only absurd, but flummery. > > The proper standard derives from the Principle of Continuity which states that the connection of damage to an infraction remains until it is broken; together with its corollary which states that the once the connection of an infraction to its damage is broken, it remains broken. > > The proof that Kaplan is absurd needs only one example: > > Consider a hand where the limit is 2S. North has bid to 3H which has the expectation of going down at least one trick. Next E bids 3S, and when pushed the director rules that 3S was an UI infraction; and because the expectation that 3S goes down NS are better off as a consequence of the infraction and thus the connection of damage to the infraction is broken. The NOS did nothing to cause or break the connection to damage- the OS did. QED > To be fair, should not your "principle of continuity' require that the NOS recognize that the connection has been broken...or perhaps does something themselves to break it? I think your example fails on this point. --bp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 5 06:35:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:35:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau, parallel Law 12C1(b) thread -> [snip] There are a few individuals playing the game so egotistical and arrogant as to believe (often, sadly, based on prior successes) that they can sufficiently browbeat any committee into ruling in their favor in practically any circumstance. [snip] Richard Hills -> Imp Pairs Dlr: East Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Sponsor...Hills.....Gallus....Ali ---.......---.......1NT(1)....2D (2) 3C........3D........Pass......3H 3S........4H........Pass......Pass ? ?(3) (1) 11-14 (2) 9-14, unspecified 6-card major (or a strong 5-card major which "looks like" a 6-card major) (3) Sponsor enquired about meaning of 3D; Ali replied, "Undiscussed, could be natural." You, Sponsor, hold: QT43 T 74 KQJT98 What actions do you take? Harald Berre Skj?ran -> Pass. Richard Hills -> What other actions do you consider taking? Harald Berre Skj?ran -> None. The bidding has let me describe my hand pretty welll. Partner should know enough to be in a position to make an informed decision over 4H. I respect his decision to defend undoubled. Richard Hills -> The first action that Sponsor took was to bid 5C. The next action taken was Hills doubling the phantom save of 5C for a 500 penalty. At the end of play the second action that Sponsor took was to scream for the Director, as Sponsor did not believe that Ali-Hills (a partnership spanning two millenia) could possibly have an undiscussed call this early in the auction.(1) To his credit the top-class Melbourne expert Bob Gallus advised his partner to cease and desist. A junior Director arrived at the table, took comprehensive notes and statements from both sides, then went off to consult with the Director in charge. But the Director in charge's ruling was necessarily a Law 82C Director's Error, since he failed to inform either side of what it was. Sponsor, however, later gained compensating imps on the final board of the match. The tiny playing room meant excessive noise levels from post-mortems at other tables while our table was finishing its final board last (due to excessive time wasted on the Director summoning during the earlier board). So the cacophony caused Hashmat Ali to make a Serious Error as declarer on that final board, failing in an easy game. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) If one assumes that Ali and Hills are "plausible liars"(3) who have had decades-long unchanged methods, then Sponsor had a point. But as it happened, we replaced our previous Cappelletti convention with this modification only a few months ago. We "discussed" the obviously straightforward continuations but left this continuation "undiscussed".(2) (2) In his book Jeff Meckstroth relates the story of a Meckwell implicit partnership non-understanding. Meckwell had two conflicting meta-rules. Meckstroth bid 4NT, believing it to be Keycard Blackood, but Rodwell believed it was natural. So Meckstroth played a cold slam in an iffy 4NT. (3) Nigel Guthrie: "[cunning snip] many people rationalise all kinds of infractions. For example: exceeding speed limits [cunning snip] Most get away with it. [cunning snip]" Richard Hills: No, in Canberra most people do _not_ get away with exceeding speed limits when a speed camera is watching. And in Duplicate Bridge the Director is watching. Sven Pran -> [un-cunning snip] cheats and liars, but in my environment that is not much of a problem. The few times we come across such players we treat them accordingly and that's it. Maybe our environment is more transparent; rest assured that cheats and liars here won't get away with it more than a couple of times at most. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111205/b161506a/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 5 13:52:37 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:52:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> Message-ID: <4EDCBE95.4090809@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/12/2011 0:00, David Grabiner a ?crit : > Th > > If declarer forgets to draw an outstanding trump, that would normally be a > serious error; if he does not draw West's last trump because he needs to keep a > trump in dummy to endplay East, that is not a serious error even if the endplay > fails because West ruffs something. > > If a player passes a forcing bid and plays a game-forcing auction in a > part-score, that would normally be a serious error; if he guesses that, despite > the force, he is in the last makable contract, that is not a serious error even > if a game could be made. > > AG : one quibble : usualy, when a player passes a forcing bid, it is precisely for this reason (whether right or wrong). Therefore, it seems at first sight that you contradict yourself. What did I miss ? Ah yes, he might have forgotten his system. Is this deemed a serious error ? (I mean, one that no serious player would ever make) From n_g3 at msn.com Mon Dec 5 14:07:42 2011 From: n_g3 at msn.com (nigel guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:07:42 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] (1) If one assumes that Ali and Hills are "plausible liars"(3) who have had decades-long unchanged methods, then Sponsor had a point. But as it happened, we replaced our previous Cappelletti convention with this modification only a few months ago. We "discussed" the obviously straightforward continuations but left this continuation "undiscussed".(2) (2) In his book Jeff Meckstroth relates the story of a Meckwell implicit partnership non-understanding. Meckwell had two conflicting meta-rules. Meckstroth bid 4NT, believing it to be Keycard Blackood, but Rodwell believed it was natural. So Meckstroth played a cold slam in an iffy 4NT. (3) Nigel Guthrie: "[cunning snip] many people rationalise all kinds of infractions. For example: exceeding speed limits [cunning snip] Most get away with it. [cunning snip]" Richard Hills: No, in Canberra most people do _not_ get away with exceeding speed limits when a speed camera is watching. And in Duplicate Bridge the Director is watching. [Sven Pran] [un-cunning snip] cheats and liars, but in my environment that is not much of a problem. The few times we come across such players we treat them accordingly and that's it. Maybe our environment is more transparent; rest assured that cheats and liars here won't get away with it more than a couple of times at most. [Nige1] In the UK, a director can rule against an alleged offender, on the balance of probability, without implying that *this particular player* is a cheat or liar. Nevertheless, our experience in the UK is that the director rules "mechanical error", when players insist that it is, and they usually do. In contrast, Richard and Sven believe that few of their compatriots would rationalize "a slip of the mind" as a "slip of the hand". They could be right. At the bridge-table, it's hard to substantiate such suspicions. If you accept Victor Mollo's contention that Bridge-players behave as a cross-section of society, then you might obtain a crude estimate from national rates of infidelity, income-tax fraud, benefit fraud, speeding violations, and the like. These are probably less prevalent because they're easier to detect. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 5 14:52:13 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 08:52:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003301ccb2dc$b043e2d0$10cba870$@online.no> References: <003301ccb2dc$b043e2d0$10cba870$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:30:18 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> But right, players will lie. Lot's of them in my experience. And the >> more the >> director lets the players get away with it, the more who will lie. I >> think one >> blmler reported a club where they claimed mispull whenever they wanted >> to >> change their bid and the director always granted it and every one was >> in on >> the game. > [...] > [Sven Pran] We are apparently living in different worlds. My experience > is that bridge players are generally very honest; they play the game as > Gentlemen and Ladies. I agree this is in general true. I would estimate that maybe only 20% of the claims of mispull (that I see) are suspicious. I will try to keep a more careful record. What you need to say, to back up your claim, is not merely that you don't see instances of people trying to "cheat" on this law, but that you look for evidence of "cheating" and don't see it. For example, you might say: In my country, when they say it was a mistake of the fingers and I let them change the bid, they always change it to a nearby bid; for example, they never try to change 1C to 1NT. In my country, it is rare to nonexistent to claim a mistake of the fingers on a Blackwood auction (or any step response). > > I agree with Robert that we need a different set of laws for cheats and > liars, but in my environment that is not much of a problem. The few > times we come across such players we treat them accordingly and that's > it. > > Maybe our environment is more transparent; rest assured that cheats and > liars here won't get away with it more than a couple of times at most. The concern in the laws is where cheating is difficult to impossible to detect. For example, a players says he would have done something different if a bid had been properly alerted. Should the laws trust this person? A player says he was planning on bidding even before his partner hestitated. Should we change the laws so that this is trusted? And I think you make an excellent point when you say that your club doesn't tolerate any cheating. When you let one person get away with cheating, other people see it and are more likely to cheat. So it's a spreading thing that shouldn't be allowed to start. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 5 14:52:57 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:52:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <64548E6B-92B7-45CA-987A-92BCABF27AD6@starpower.net> On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 12/1/2011 12:02 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> AG : a simple criteron : if you're asking yourself whether it's an >> egregious error, then it isn't. Such an error (or horror) should >> be so >> plain as to dissipate any doubt very quickly. > > I agree with this, and it seems Thomas does too. One of Ton's > examples > might show the difference: North has shown 12-14 HCP in the > auction, and > 12 of those points have been revealed in the play. Therefore South > should see that North cannot hold the S-K. Ton says failing to > realize > this is "serious error." It might be so in, say, the Bermuda Bowl, > but > I don't think it should be so in any normal event. I would be very reluctant to categorize any misplay that resulted from the player's having lost track of a card (or cards) played prior to the previous trick as a sufficiently egregious error to deny redress for an opponent's infraction. Admittedly, I do not direct in Bermuda Bowls. > Vast numbers of ACBL AC's disagree with me, I'm afraid. Which suggests that the law is being misapplied in the ACBL, and is in need of clarification. Replacing Mr. Kaplan's "egregious" with TFLB's "serious" was a serious error, if not an egregious one. If our lawmakers don't like the word "egregious", Roget's suggests several synonyms, including "monstrous", "preposterous", "flagrant", "gross", "outre" and "bizarre" (but not "serious"). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 5 15:20:43 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:20:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2011, at 6:00 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > Thomas Dehn writes: > >> Sitting behind dummy's KJ with the AQ, declarer plays to the K, >> the defender >> drops the Q under the K. That is a serious error. Anything less >> blatant than >> that is not. > > Richard Hills writes: > >> Declarer's RHO, the Rueful Rabbit, is about to be endplayed after >> winning the >> AQ, >> allowing declarer to score nine tricks in 3NT. But RR chokes on >> his cherry >> brandy, >> playing the queen under the king. With a bonus trick in the bag, >> declarer >> refuses to >> endplay RR with an ace RR obviously does not hold, and instead >> takes a sensible >> but losing line for a total of only eight tricks. > >> Given that Rueful Rabbit's serious error was a will-o'-wisp that >> lured declarer >> into >> a bog, could it indeed be described as a serious error? > > If Papa would have made the same play at the other table, then it > is not a > serious error. > > This applies to all the examples (except infractions of law) we > have discussed > as serious errors; any bid or play which has a logical (even if not > optimal) > reason for making it by a player who was aware of the facts cannot > be a serious > error. > > If East blocks a suit on defense and should know he is doing it, > preventing West > from cashing the last round, that would normally be a serious > error. But if the > Rabbit blocks the suit, preventing the Hog from squeezing him on > the last round, > that is not a serious error. And if Karapet blocks the suit, > preventing Papa > from squeezing him on the last round on the distribution he expects > but actually > allowing the Walrus to make an unmakable contract, that is also not > a serious > error. > > If declarer forgets to draw an outstanding trump, that would > normally be a > serious error; if he does not draw West's last trump because he > needs to keep a > trump in dummy to endplay East, that is not a serious error even if > the endplay > fails because West ruffs something. > > If a player passes a forcing bid and plays a game-forcing auction in a > part-score, that would normally be a serious error; if he guesses > that, despite > the force, he is in the last makable contract, that is not a > serious error even > if a game could be made. As David demonstrates, the question of whether an error is "serious" is subject to analysis. This is the ACBL's problem in a nutshell. An "egregious" error is immediately obvious at the time it is made; one expects startled gasps from the onlookers. I would argue that if it requires a post-mortem analysis to decide whether an error was sufficiently "serious" to justify denial of redress, then it wasn't. Period. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 5 15:40:27 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:40:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:07 AM, nigel guthrie wrote: > In contrast, Richard and Sven believe that few of their > compatriots would > rationalize "a slip of the mind" as a "slip of the hand". They > could be > right. At the bridge-table, it's hard to substantiate such > suspicions. If > you accept Victor Mollo's contention that Bridge-players behave as a > cross-section of society, then you might obtain a crude estimate from > national rates of infidelity, income-tax fraud, benefit fraud, > speeding > violations, and the like. These are probably less prevalent because > they're easier to detect. They are surely more prevalent, because they are remunerative. Infidelity begets sexual satisfaction. Tax and benefit fraud beget money. Speeding begets time for activities far more pleasant and useful than driving. Cheating at bridge, at least among amateurs (who make up the overwhelming majority of the bridge-playing population), begets only worthless masterpoints. If anybody out there knows where I can trade my masterpoints for sexual satisfaction, money or extra useful time, please reply privately, urgently and immediately. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 5 15:53:23 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:53:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <003301ccb2dc$b043e2d0$10cba870$@online.no> Message-ID: <000601ccb35d$a3e55d30$ebb01790$@online.no> > Robert Frick > > [...] > >> But right, players will lie. Lot's of them in my experience. And the > >> more the director lets the players get away with it, the more who > >> will lie. I think one blmler reported a club where they claimed > >> mispull whenever they wanted to change their bid and the director > >> always granted it and every one was in on the game. > > [...] > > [Sven Pran] We are apparently living in different worlds. My > > experience is that bridge players are generally very honest; they play > > the game as Gentlemen and Ladies. > > I agree this is in general true. I would estimate that maybe only 20% of the > claims of mispull (that I see) are suspicious. I will try to keep a more careful > record. > > What you need to say, to back up your claim, is not merely that you don't see > instances of people trying to "cheat" on this law, but that you look for > evidence of "cheating" and don't see it. For example, you might say: [Sven Pran] What I shall say is this: Don't assume that I am na?ve, you will probably be disappointed. From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 5 15:58:19 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:58:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> Message-ID: <000701ccb35e$5363f820$fa2be860$@online.no> > Eric Landau [...] > As David demonstrates, the question of whether an error is "serious" > is subject to analysis. This is the ACBL's problem in a nutshell. > An "egregious" error is immediately obvious at the time it is made; one > expects startled gasps from the onlookers. [Sven Pran] And even then: I have experienced "startled gaps" from the entire audience only to subsequently discover that the play eventually competed for "the play of the year"! From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 5 16:36:01 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:36:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <64548E6B-92B7-45CA-987A-92BCABF27AD6@starpower.net> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> <64548E6B-92B7-45CA-987A-92BCABF27AD6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4EDCE4E1.4040402@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/12/2011 14:52, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 12/1/2011 12:02 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> AG : a simple criteron : if you're asking yourself whether it's an >>> egregious error, then it isn't. Such an error (or horror) should >>> be so >>> plain as to dissipate any doubt very quickly. >> I agree with this, and it seems Thomas does too. One of Ton's >> examples >> might show the difference: North has shown 12-14 HCP in the >> auction, and >> 12 of those points have been revealed in the play. Therefore South >> should see that North cannot hold the S-K. Ton says failing to >> realize >> this is "serious error." It might be so in, say, the Bermuda Bowl, >> but >> I don't think it should be so in any normal event. > I would be very reluctant to categorize any misplay that resulted > from the player's having lost track of a card (or cards) played prior > to the previous trick as a sufficiently egregious error to deny > redress for an opponent's infraction. Admittedly, I do not direct in > Bermuda Bowls. > >> Vast numbers of ACBL AC's disagree with me, I'm afraid. > Which suggests that the law is being misapplied in the ACBL, and is > in need of clarification. Replacing Mr. Kaplan's "egregious" with > TFLB's "serious" was a serious error, if not an egregious one. AG : agree wholeheartedly. There is no such thing as an unconcerned error. We all make several "serious" errors on every complex deal, that is, most deals. > If > our lawmakers don't like the word "egregious", Roget's suggests > several synonyms, including "monstrous", "preposterous", "flagrant", > "gross", "outre" and "bizarre" (but not "serious"). AG : "flagrant" seems perfect to me ... at least in French. Don't know whether the gradation is exactly the same in English. May I suggest "IOTTMCO" ? More seriously, and perhaps more flagrantly, "obvious" would be right IMHO. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 5 16:38:12 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:38:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> Message-ID: <4EDCE564.5030200@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/12/2011 15:20, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 4, 2011, at 6:00 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > >> Thomas Dehn writes: >> >>> Sitting behind dummy's KJ with the AQ, declarer plays to the K, >>> the defender >>> drops the Q under the K. That is a serious error. Anything less >>> blatant than >>> that is not. >> Richard Hills writes: >> >>> Declarer's RHO, the Rueful Rabbit, is about to be endplayed after >>> winning the >>> AQ, >>> allowing declarer to score nine tricks in 3NT. But RR chokes on >>> his cherry >>> brandy, >>> playing the queen under the king. With a bonus trick in the bag, >>> declarer >>> refuses to >>> endplay RR with an ace RR obviously does not hold, and instead >>> takes a sensible >>> but losing line for a total of only eight tricks. >>> Given that Rueful Rabbit's serious error was a will-o'-wisp that >>> lured declarer >>> into >>> a bog, could it indeed be described as a serious error? >> If Papa would have made the same play at the other table, then it >> is not a >> serious error. >> >> This applies to all the examples (except infractions of law) we >> have discussed >> as serious errors; any bid or play which has a logical (even if not >> optimal) >> reason for making it by a player who was aware of the facts cannot >> be a serious >> error. >> >> If East blocks a suit on defense and should know he is doing it, >> preventing West >> from cashing the last round, that would normally be a serious >> error. But if the >> Rabbit blocks the suit, preventing the Hog from squeezing him on >> the last round, >> that is not a serious error. And if Karapet blocks the suit, >> preventing Papa >> from squeezing him on the last round on the distribution he expects >> but actually >> allowing the Walrus to make an unmakable contract, that is also not >> a serious >> error. >> >> If declarer forgets to draw an outstanding trump, that would >> normally be a >> serious error; if he does not draw West's last trump because he >> needs to keep a >> trump in dummy to endplay East, that is not a serious error even if >> the endplay >> fails because West ruffs something. >> >> If a player passes a forcing bid and plays a game-forcing auction in a >> part-score, that would normally be a serious error; if he guesses >> that, despite >> the force, he is in the last makable contract, that is not a >> serious error even >> if a game could be made. > As David demonstrates, the question of whether an error is "serious" > is subject to analysis. This is the ACBL's problem in a nutshell. > An "egregious" error is immediately obvious at the time it is made; AG : Well well well ... I wasn't so far offroad in suggesting IOTTMCO ;-) > one expects startled gasps from the onlookers. I would argue that if > it requires a post-mortem analysis to decide whether an error was > sufficiently "serious" to justify denial of redress, then it wasn't. > Period. > > AG : perfect. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 5 16:46:47 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:46:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EDCE767.2080905@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/12/2011 15:40, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:07 AM, nigel guthrie wrote: > >> In contrast, Richard and Sven believe that few of their >> compatriots would >> rationalize "a slip of the mind" as a "slip of the hand". They >> could be >> right. At the bridge-table, it's hard to substantiate such >> suspicions. If >> you accept Victor Mollo's contention that Bridge-players behave as a >> cross-section of society, then you might obtain a crude estimate from >> national rates of infidelity, income-tax fraud, benefit fraud, >> speeding >> violations, and the like. These are probably less prevalent because >> they're easier to detect. > They are surely more prevalent, because they are remunerative. > Infidelity begets sexual satisfaction. Tax and benefit fraud beget > money. Speeding begets time for activities far more pleasant and > useful than driving. AG : I finally understood why I don't speed. I love driving ;-) Most people think the contrary : that those who do speed do it because they love it. > Cheating at bridge, at least among amateurs > (who make up the overwhelming majority of the bridge-playing > population), begets only worthless masterpoints. If anybody out > there knows where I can trade my masterpoints for sexual > satisfaction, money or extra useful time, please reply privately, > urgently and immediately. > Well, there are money prizes below profesional level, too ... but I think you forget something. Pardon my cynism. Top finishes and masterpoints boost the ego, and that's what many, many bridge players strive for, whence one shouldn't underestimate the "benefit" side of cheating. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 5 16:48:12 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:48:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59AB8F4BAE1D43A0B218B7F3DB3AE8F1@G3> [Nige1] In contrast, Richard and Sven believe that few of their compatriots would rationalize "a slip of the mind" as a "slip of the hand". They could be right. At the bridge-table, it's hard to substantiate such suspicions. If you accept Victor Mollo's contention that Bridge-players behave as a cross-section of society, then you might obtain a crude estimate from national rates of infidelity, income-tax fraud, benefit fraud, speeding violations, and the like. These are probably less prevalent because they're easier to detect. [Eric Landau] They are surely more prevalent, because they are remunerative. Infidelity begets sexual satisfaction. Tax and benefit fraud beget money. Speeding begets time for activities far more pleasant and useful than driving. Cheating at bridge, at least among amateurs (who make up the overwhelming majority of the bridge-playing population), begets only worthless masterpoints. If anybody out there knows where I can trade my masterpoints for sexual satisfaction, money or extra useful time, please reply privately, urgently and immediately. [Nige2] IMO, Victor Mollo was an astute observer of human nature and again he has a different perspective from Eric. For example, Mollo judged cheating to be more common among duplicate-bridge players, playing for honour and prestige, than among ordinary rubber-bridge players, with mere money at stake. At duplicate, I agree there are fewer professionals than amateurs but for the former both considerations may be influential. Anyway, the poor straw-man has suffered another bashing: there are no cheats, among players whom I suspect of rationalising a "slip of the mind" as a "slip of the hand". The putative offenders cannot be certain of their motives. When asked, they naturally give themselves the benefit of the doubt. Take society at large: Poor people are more likely to to take violent radical action than rich people. Could it be that seemingly altruistic political conviction is tinged by subconscious self-interest? There still remain some honest insightful players. For instance, they readily admit to a slip of the mind. Also, when they are unsure they say so. But don't worry. Current legal trends should eliminate them from serious competition. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 5 17:29:55 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:29:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <000701ccb35e$5363f820$fa2be860$@online.no> References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> <000701ccb35e$5363f820$fa2be860$@online.no> Message-ID: <6AC818DE-955D-408D-AE5F-815CE45F7721@starpower.net> On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Eric Landau > [...] >> As David demonstrates, the question of whether an error is "serious" >> is subject to analysis. This is the ACBL's problem in a nutshell. >> An "egregious" error is immediately obvious at the time it is >> made; one >> expects startled gasps from the onlookers. > > [Sven Pran] And even then: > I have experienced "startled gaps" from the entire audience only to > subsequently discover that the play eventually competed for "the > play of the > year"! Of course. My statement did not imply its converse. I don't assert that a reaction from the crowd would suggest an egregious error, but rather that the lack of a reaction would suggest the absense of one. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 5 18:01:00 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:01:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <003301ccb2dc$b043e2d0$10cba870$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EDCF8CC.1070101@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/12/2011 14:52, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:30:18 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >> [...] >>> But right, players will lie. Lot's of them in my experience. And the >>> more the >>> director lets the players get away with it, the more who will lie. I >>> think one >>> blmler reported a club where they claimed mispull whenever they wanted >>> to >>> change their bid and the director always granted it and every one was >>> in on >>> the game. >> [...] >> [Sven Pran] We are apparently living in different worlds. My experience >> is that bridge players are generally very honest; they play the game as >> Gentlemen and Ladies. > I agree this is in general true. I would estimate that maybe only 20% of > the claims of mispull (that I see) are suspicious. I will try to keep a > more careful record. > > What you need to say, to back up your claim, is not merely that you don't > see instances of people trying to "cheat" on this law, but that you look > for evidence of "cheating" and don't see it. For example, you might say: > > In my country, when they say it was a mistake of the fingers and I let > them change the bid, they always change it to a nearby bid; for example, > they never try to change 1C to 1NT. > > In my country, it is rare to nonexistent to claim a mistake of the fingers > on a Blackwood auction (or any step response). > > > >> I agree with Robert that we need a different set of laws for cheats and >> liars, but in my environment that is not much of a problem. The few >> times we come across such players we treat them accordingly and that's >> it. >> >> Maybe our environment is more transparent; rest assured that cheats and >> liars here won't get away with it more than a couple of times at most. > The concern in the laws is where cheating is difficult to impossible to > detect. For example, a players says he would have done something different > if a bid had been properly alerted. Should the laws trust this person? A > player says he was planning on bidding even before his partner hestitated. > Should we change the laws so that this is trusted? AG : those two claims need to be treated completely differently, because one is from the NOs, the other from the OS. In case of doubt, etc. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 5 18:04:51 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:04:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <000701ccb35e$5363f820$fa2be860$@online.no> References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos> <000701ccb35e$5363f820$fa2be860$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EDCF9B3.3090605@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/12/2011 15:58, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Eric Landau > [...] >> As David demonstrates, the question of whether an error is "serious" >> is subject to analysis. This is the ACBL's problem in a nutshell. >> An "egregious" error is immediately obvious at the time it is made; one >> expects startled gasps from the onlookers. > [Sven Pran] And even then: > I have experienced "startled gaps" from the entire audience only to > subsequently discover that the play eventually competed for "the play of the > year"! > > AG : of course, onlookers who visibly or audibly gaps shouldn't onlook any more. And your qualm isn't such a big problem ; any player who shows me convincingly why his gasp-creating play is the play of the year will of course be freed from any accusation of egregious error. In fact, more seriously, we all now what "obvious" error means, whence the problem is less serious (or egregious) than we dolichotetratrichotomists make believe. Best regards Alain From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Dec 5 18:38:55 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:38:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos><000701ccb35e$5363f820$fa2be860$@online.no> <4EDCF9B3.3090605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6AB01F28FDD94B84B61A4F2399A579E1@changeme1> the problem is less serious (or egregious) than we dolichotetratrichotomists make believe. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 28044 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111205/4a96c693/attachment-0001.jpe From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Dec 5 18:42:15 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 17:42:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <5F867F99535D4943A62258E6A94B3373@erdos><000701ccb35e$5363f820$fa2be860$@online.no> <4EDCF9B3.3090605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <633E11E5C4D440B38E9D5F2E77077EC7@changeme1> hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia The fear of long words !! whence the problem is less serious (or egregious) than we dolichotetratrichotomists make believe. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 5 22:24:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:24:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: At least one blmler is interested in the complete details of the original deal. (Amusingly Sponsor's singleton ten of hearts is the reason that his 5C save was a phantom.) Aussie Grand National Swiss Butler Pairs Sunday 27th November 2011 Director in charge: David Anderson Brd: 14 Dlr: East Vul: None ................J9 ................75 ................AQJ965 ................A42 QT43...............................A65 T..................................KJ9 74.................................KT832 KQJT98.............................65 ................K872 ................AQ86432 ................--- ................73 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Sponsor...Hills.....Gallus....Ali ---.......---.......1NT(1)....2D (2) 3C........3D........Pass......3H 3S........4H........Pass......Pass 5C?(3)....X.........Pass......Pass Pass (1) 11-14 (2) 9-14, unspecified 6-card major (or a strong 5-card major which "looks like" a 6-card major) (3) Sponsor enquired about meaning of 3D; Ali replied, "Undiscussed, could be natural." At the end of play the second action that Sponsor took was to scream for the Director, as Sponsor did not believe that Ali-Hills (a partnership spanning two millennia) could possibly have an undiscussed call this early in the auction.(1) To his credit the top-class Melbourne expert Bob Gallus advised his partner to cease and desist. A junior Director arrived at the table, took comprehensive notes and statements from both sides, then went off to consult with the Director in charge. But the Director in charge's ruling was necessarily a Law 82C Director's Error, since he failed to inform either side of what it was. In fairness to the Director in charge, he was under severe time pressure, as almost all of the players were flying home at the end of the session. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) Nigel Guthrie: [un-cunning snip] "If you accept Victor Mollo's contention that Bridge-players behave as a cross-section of society, then you might obtain a crude estimate from national rates of infidelity, income-tax fraud, benefit fraud, speeding violations, and the like. These are probably less prevalent because they're easier to detect." Richard Hills: No, the contention of Sven Pran and myself is the contrary, that due to the nature of Duplicate Bridge (weather experts and bridge experts are the only experts to produce consistently accurate predictions) it is bridge fraud which is so easy to detect that some of those who might be tempted refrain. Sponsor believed that Ali-Hills might be frauds, but his experienced partner knew that we were not. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111205/91fa9e51/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 5 22:44:56 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:44:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Samuel Johnson (1750): It is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust. Eric Landau: [snip] Cheating at bridge, at least among amateurs (who make up the overwhelming majority of the bridge-playing population), begets only worthless masterpoints. [snip] Richard Hills: King George V collected "worthless" pieces of paper, which only became worthwhile because he and other philatelists valued them. Likewise many amateur bridge players do not play beautifully for a joyful cross- ruffs, but play ugly for the sole purpose of collecting masterpoints. Indeed, when the English Bridge Union introduced a masterpoint system in the 1950s, its membership doubled. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111205/97e8602e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 5 22:49:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:49:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <64548E6B-92B7-45CA-987A-92BCABF27AD6@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Which suggests that the law is being >misapplied in the ACBL, and is in need of >clarification. Replacing Mr. Kaplan's >"egregious" with TFLB's "serious" was a >serious error, if not an egregious one. > >If our lawmakers don't like the word >"egregious", Roget's suggests several >synonyms, including "monstrous", >"preposterous", "flagrant", "gross", >"outre" and "bizarre" (but not >"serious"). Perhaps also "ridiculous"? Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111205/1d258e4e/attachment.html From clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 5 23:34:31 2011 From: clubanddiamond at yahoo.co.uk (Alan Hill) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:34:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005901ccb0bf$e21a5380$a64efa80$@nl> References: <005901ccb0bf$e21a5380$a64efa80$@nl> Message-ID: <1323124471.3175.YahooMailNeo@web27901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Good answer. Most of the time the opposition know whether the bid can be changed because they see the bidder's reaction. Ethics.\! Alan H >________________________________ > From: Hans van Staveren >To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >Sent: Friday, 2 December 2011, 6:59 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >The law 25A does not mention mechanical. It says unintended. >Mechanical is how it is usually ruled. >? >But let?s look at it from the following point of view. A human being is a giant machine. Inside this machine are two types of mission control. >? >1) The bridge playing conscious brain. >2) The part that controls movement. >? >Say the bridge playing part decides to bid 1C. Then it tells the movement part to pick the 1C card and put it on the table. The latter part involves many extremely complicated things. >1) Looking where the bidding box is >2) Recognizing the 1C card >3) Steering the hand to it >4) Picking the card >5) Pulling it out >6) Depositing on the table >? >Now in my opinion, but I am usually very lonely there, anything that goes wrong in these six actions counts as being unintentional, since it is unintentional from the bridge playing mission control part. >? >For example, I have something with colours. Pass is green, so is 1C. In the past I mixed these up in both directions. >Was it my bridge brain that made a mistake? No, it was the recognizing part, since translating from both pass and 1C the instruction my bridge brain sends to my movement brain somehow includes the concept green. >? >So, I think that in these two cases I would be able to claim law 25A iso 25B. >? >Now there are countries that say 25A is only for a miss pull, and then stipulate that a miss pull is only possible from the same compartment of the bidding box. So my pass vs 1C error in their explanation will never be allowed as 25A. >? >I think the latter point of view is wrong, while of course recognizing that figuring out where in a players brain things went wrong is close to impossible. >? >Hans >_______________________________________________ >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/20111205/44364a04/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 6 02:45:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:45:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Guilty until proved Innocent In-Reply-To: <59AB8F4BAE1D43A0B218B7F3DB3AE8F1@G3> References: <59AB8F4BAE1D43A0B218B7F3DB3AE8F1@G3> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:48:12 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > In contrast, Richard and Sven believe that few of their compatriots > would > rationalize "a slip of the mind" as a "slip of the hand". They could be > right. At the bridge-table, it's hard to substantiate such suspicions. > If > you accept Victor Mollo's contention that Bridge-players behave as a > cross-section of society, then you might obtain a crude estimate from > national rates of infidelity, income-tax fraud, benefit fraud, speeding > violations, and the like. These are probably less prevalent because > they're easier to detect. > > [Eric Landau] > They are surely more prevalent, because they are remunerative. > Infidelity begets sexual satisfaction. Tax and benefit fraud beget > money. Speeding begets time for activities far more pleasant and > useful than driving. Cheating at bridge, at least among amateurs > (who make up the overwhelming majority of the bridge-playing > population), begets only worthless masterpoints. If anybody out > there knows where I can trade my masterpoints for sexual > satisfaction, money or extra useful time, please reply privately, > urgently and immediately. > > [Nige2] > IMO, Victor Mollo was an astute observer of human nature and again he > has a > different perspective from Eric. For example, Mollo judged cheating to > be > more common among duplicate-bridge players, playing for honour and > prestige, > than among ordinary rubber-bridge players, with mere money at stake. At > duplicate, I agree there are fewer professionals than amateurs but for > the > former both considerations may be influential. > > Anyway, the poor straw-man has suffered another bashing: there are no > cheats, among players whom I suspect of rationalising a "slip of the > mind" > as a "slip of the hand". The putative offenders cannot be certain of > their > motives. When asked, they naturally give themselves the benefit of the > doubt. Take society at large: Poor people are more likely to to take > violent radical action than rich people. Could it be that seemingly > altruistic political conviction is tinged by subconscious self-interest? > > There still remain some honest insightful players. For instance, they > readily admit to a slip of the mind. Also, when they are unsure they say > so. But don't worry. Current legal trends should eliminate them from > serious competition. I decided to keep a log. My first claim of mispull came tonight! It was a Blackwood response, which is known to be particularly difficult to pull the right bidding card for. She was sincere that she pulled the wrong card. (But I don't allow that change as a matter of policy. Hmm, but the owner asked why.) From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 00:08:38 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:08:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> <4AFFCAD6-29FC-468B-ACCC-393CF690D750@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1323212918.38145.YahooMailNeo@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ________________________________ [Eric Landau ] Yes.? L12C1(b) has its origin in an article by Edgar Kaplan that? appeared in The Bridge World in the early 1970s, in which he first? proposed the distinction between "subsequent" and "consequent"? damage, and asserted that redress should be given only for the? latter.? I replied to his article with a letter giving a variety of? somewhat marginal examples, effectively asking for sufficient detail? to apply his new concept to actual cases.? He responded in print in a? lengthy TBW article (subsequently reprinted in "How Would You Rule?",? a collection of reprints) analyzing each of my examples in detail.? I? continue to this day to treat that article as the definitive word on? the subject, and recommend that anyone concerned with this issue read? it (although I confess to having no idea where it might be found,? isn't everything on line these days?).? They will discover that not? just Ton, but Edgar too, sets a much higher standard than what we see? in the ACBL these days. Anda: ? This?excellent article was used almost twenty years ago in an EBL TDs' Course. I have it in pdf and word format - it's about 5 pages. Could you instruct me how to post it here? ? AndaOn Nov 30, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Jerry Fusselman] > I consider the point Eric makes here to be similar to my statement > that there is no such thing as a pure double shot---any such attempt > would be intrinsically risky. > > Questions for Eric in case he will indulge me: > > Are your standards for ruling Serious Error relatively close to > Ton's---i.e., much less frequent than we see in the ACBL? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111206/0beaf20a/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 7 00:56:27 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:56:27 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com><023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl><33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP><00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl><00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> Message-ID: From: "Jerry Fusselman" > This > consideration alone is almost enough to convince me that what we call > double shots should be legal. Double shots are perfectly legal. Proof: If they succeed, table result stands/. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrencom From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 7 02:01:44 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:01:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com><023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl><33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: From: "David Grabiner" > But he ruled that the 3S call denied N-S the right to any redress; N-S > were not > damaged by West's double (which would have given them -130 had North > passed and > East bid 3D, better than the -200 they would have had without the double). > Rather, N-S were damaged by North's abnormal 3S bid. Thid does not accord with the definition of "damge" for the offenders, poorly-worded in Law 12B1. The principle was established in the Lille 1998 WBFLC meeting, which is that for the offending side, "damage" is defined as obtaining a better score than would have been the case absent the infraction. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 7 02:23:12 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:23:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com><023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl><33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: "Marvin French" writes: > > From: "David Grabiner" > >> But he ruled that the 3S call denied N-S the right to any redress; N-S >> were not >> damaged by West's double (which would have given them -130 had North >> passed and >> East bid 3D, better than the -200 they would have had without the double). >> Rather, N-S were damaged by North's abnormal 3S bid. > > Thid does not accord with the definition of "damge" for the offenders, > poorly-worded in Law 12B1. The principle was established in the Lille 1998 > WBFLC meeting, which is that for the offending side, "damage" is defined as > obtaining a better score than would have been the case absent the > infraction. The table ruling was split according to this principle. E-W got the +200 which they would have had without the infraction; N-S got the -800 which they earned with a bad bid when they could have had -130 after the infraction. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 7 04:18:22 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:18:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> <392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> Message-ID: <4EDEDAFE.7070603@nhcc.net> On 12/3/2011 9:56 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > I find it hard to believe that this could be considered a serious error. If you > are a good enough player to be expected to count your opponents' HCP, you are > also a good enough player to allow for the possibility that a player downgraded > a 15 count to 14 and opened it with a 12-14 point 1NT. It was Ton's example -- the only one I disagreed with. Ton gives all the details, and I have no doubt the play is an error, but it's one I could certainly make on a bad day. (My partners might say "would make on most days.") FWIW, I agree with Eric's suggestion that "flagrant error" would be better wording. It strikes me that there is some parallel with claim procedures, and maybe similar wording would be useful to get away from "irrational." If declarer has K2 in hand and A3 in dummy and claims with no statement, not even Sven :-) will deem him to play A and K on the same trick. It seems to me "serious error" or "flagrant error" is exactly the sort of thing we would never "force" a claimer to do, though real players will occasionally make such errors. Real players revoke, for example, but we don't assume a claimer will do so. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 7 04:22:00 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:22:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> On 11/25/2011 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks > at his 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains > them > a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a > 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now declarer revokes in a way > that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? > > This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's an unambiguous +140 for me. No penalty tricks, but declarer gets back the trick defender's revoke cost him. There are some wording problems in L64, but the principles seem clear to me (though not necessarily to a recent AC). From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 7 05:37:53 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:37:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4EDEDAFE.7070603@nhcc.net> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> <392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> <4EDEDAFE.7070603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <008667163F5E429DA98E6A0E057F334E@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: > On 12/3/2011 9:56 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> I find it hard to believe that this could be considered a serious error. If >> you >> are a good enough player to be expected to count your opponents' HCP, you are >> also a good enough player to allow for the possibility that a player >> downgraded >> a 15 count to 14 and opened it with a 12-14 point 1NT. > > It was Ton's example -- the only one I disagreed with. Ton gives all > the details, and I have no doubt the play is an error, but it's one I > could certainly make on a bad day. (My partners might say "would make > on most days.") Here is the post Steve is referring to. http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/2010-February/004734.html 6) S/EW ?J96 ?K75 ?AQJ8 ?Q76 ?AQ74 ?K53 ?Q ?JT9643 ?963 ?72 ?J9432 ?A5 ?T82 ?A82 ?KT54 ?KT8 W N E S pass pass 1NT 2? X pass pass 2? X 3? X 3? X All pass 1NT shows 12 -14; 2? is not alerted The TD does not allow the 3?-bid. South starts with ?8 for Q and A, ?3 for Q and K; ?A: ?T; ? ruffed by East; ?J for Ace in South does not catch the ?K but plays ?4, after which declarer makes his contract. ?J96 ?7 ?Q ?76 ?AQ74 ?K53 ? ?T96 ? ? ?J43 ?5 ?T82 ?8 ?4 ?KT The TD decides that not playing ?K in this position is a serious error. North has shown 12 points, which places ?K in East. The only danger is a discard of a club in East on a possibly free spade in West. South does not have an alternative but to play ?K. Not playing itis a serious error. The normal result is 3?X minus 3, the expected result is 3?X ? 1: compensation for the difference; but no compensation for the difference between 3?X - 1 and 3?X made. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 7 10:59:27 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:59:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4EDEDAFE.7070603@nhcc.net> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <24CE3C86-9E6F-4AD8-95F9-95A336B5390F@starpower.net> <4ED7B31C.2070700@ulb.ac.be> <4EDA8CAB.4000604@nhcc.net> <392DD5CC03034F20A0430F542D3F2C4E@erdos> <4EDEDAFE.7070603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EDF38FF.2040602@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/12/2011 4:18, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 12/3/2011 9:56 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> I find it hard to believe that this could be considered a serious error. If you >> are a good enough player to be expected to count your opponents' HCP, you are >> also a good enough player to allow for the possibility that a player downgraded >> a 15 count to 14 and opened it with a 12-14 point 1NT. > It was Ton's example -- the only one I disagreed with. Ton gives all > the details, and I have no doubt the play is an error, but it's one I > could certainly make on a bad day. (My partners might say "would make > on most days.") > > FWIW, I agree with Eric's suggestion that "flagrant error" would be > better wording. > > It strikes me that there is some parallel with claim procedures, and > maybe similar wording would be useful to get away from "irrational." If > declarer has K2 in hand and A3 in dummy and claims with no statement, > not even Sven :-) will deem him to play A and K on the same trick. It > seems to me "serious error" or "flagrant error" is exactly the sort of > thing we would never "force" a claimer to do AG : I, for one, do not agree with the last paragraph, because if declarer doesn't state in his claim that he'll give attention to some feature of the deal, there is a fairly strong presumption that he wouldn't have if the deal had been played out. Not taking out the last outstanding trump, when you still have plenty of them and don't need that many, would be a flagrant error, but we still should consider that declarer wouldn't have done it. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 8 04:58:41 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:58:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:22:00 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 11/25/2011 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks >> at his 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that >> gains >> them >> a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks >> and a >> 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now declarer revokes in a way >> that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? >> >> This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve > > If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's an unambiguous > +140 for me. No penalty tricks, but declarer gets back the trick > defender's revoke cost him. There is no path to that ruling. Correct? But everyone else waives their hands and gets to +140 so there is no problem. > > There are some wording problems in L64, but the principles seem clear to > me (though not necessarily to a recent AC). Have you mentioned any principles? Perhaps I have not been clear. How do you get your ruling out of L12? It allows you to give declarer the score that would have occurred had the defense not revoked. That's +110. So you can't be using L64C, because that just refers you to L12. Right? Or do people have their own personal way of assigning adjusted scores? I agree that there are ways of getting +140 out of this and that almost everyone finds them. I just don't think those ways involve following the laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 8 05:55:43 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 15:55:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick scenario: >>>Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his >>>2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes >>>in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, >>>leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a >>>1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now >>>declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. >>>So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? >>> >>>This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve The unambiguous Steve Willner: >>If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's >>an unambiguous +140 for me. No penalty tricks, >>but declarer gets back the trick defender's revoke >>cost him. Robert Frick rhetorical question: >There is no path to that ruling. Correct? [snip] Joe de Bruyn rhetorical question at ALP conference: "Are we now going to suddenly turn our back on something which up until today we have said is a core value?" (Shouts of "Yes!", applause, cheering) EBU White Book, clause 64.2, Both sides revoke: Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer also revokes by over-ruffing. Both sides play to the next trick, which establishes the revokes: how does the Director rule? The Director should act under Law 64C to restore equity, as though there had been no revoke by either side. Law 64B7 makes it clear there are no rectification tricks. See #64.4. 2009 WBFLC minutes, EBU White Book paraphrase: When both sides have revoked on the same board each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD acts as though there had been no revoke by either side. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111208/b08509b1/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 8 08:01:32 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 02:01:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:55:43 -0500, wrote: > Robert Frick scenario: > >>>> Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his >>>> 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes >>>> in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, >>>> leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a >>>> 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now >>>> declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. >>>> So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? >>>> >>>> This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve > > The unambiguous Steve Willner: > >>> If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's >>> an unambiguous +140 for me. No penalty tricks, >>> but declarer gets back the trick defender's revoke >>> cost him. > > Robert Frick rhetorical question: > >> There is no path to that ruling. Correct? There is no path to that ruling using the lawbook (and WBFLC minutes). Are you conceding that point and now arguing that at least the White Book has a path to the ruling? I will agree you can get to that ruling using the White Book. Or advice from blml for that matter. It seems to me that the White Book procedure leads to the exact same ruling as "lumping the revokes together", which the WBFLC has said is incorrect. Can you think of a counter-example? Perhaps you are assuming, for the purposes of calculating equity for the first revoke, that the second revoke will occur and that the second revoke will not occur. (If the second revoke is assumed to be occurring, then declarer starts the hand with equity of +110 -- 9 tricks plus the revoke penalty.) But the situation, both before and after the first revoke, is that the second revoke hasn't occurred. > [snip] > > Joe de Bruyn rhetorical question at ALP conference: > > "Are we now going to suddenly turn our back on > something which up until today we have said is a > core value?" > (Shouts of "Yes!", applause, cheering) > > EBU White Book, clause 64.2, Both sides revoke: > > Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer > also revokes by over-ruffing. Both sides play to the > next trick, which establishes the revokes: how does > the Director rule? > > The Director should act under Law 64C to restore > equity, as though there had been no revoke by > either side. Law 64B7 makes it clear there are no > rectification tricks. See #64.4. This clearly lumps the revokes together, which the WBFLC has said is not correct. Right? > > 2009 WBFLC minutes, EBU White Book paraphrase: not a paraphrase. > > When both sides have revoked on the same board > each revoke is examined separately in assessing > the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD > acts as though there had been no revoke by either > side. And the actual minute: 7. When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs. The second sentence again lumps the revokes together, erases them, and then considers equity. Is logical thinking dead? This is getting very frustrating. Bob From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 15:39:16 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 06:39:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1323355156.44036.YahooMailNeo@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? > Robert Frick scenario: > Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his Spades contract > for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick and > changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. ? Now declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? ? ? Anda: ? For the sake of the argument let?s use the wording suggested by Ton: 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks' for L64A and L64B; ?rectification? for L64C. ? Also, let?s summarize: L64B7 - There are no penalties when both sides have revoked on the same board. L64C ? But, might be a rectification under Law 64C in order to restore equity Restore equity = in this case, give each side the number of tricks they would have if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred. ? Bob?s scenario: Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. 1. The defence revokes (in a way that gains them a trick and changes play), leaving declarer with 8 tricks. 2. Later on, declarer revokes (in a way that does not affect play), leaving declarer with the same 8 tricks. ? Since the case is ?both sides have revoked on the same board? director (a) first applies L64B7 and then (b) applies L64C. ? (a) there are not penalties (L64B7) --> so far declarer gets 8 tricks (b) equity check: Q: did declarer make the same number of tricks he would get if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred? (L64C) -- A: No --> a rectification is needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks ? Now, let?s go back to Bob?s main concern in this article: Do we need L64B7? and see what happens if we treat the case of ?both sides have revoked on the same board? as 2 separate cases. ? Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. ? First revoke: declarer makes 8 tricks - L64A2 gives a penalty of 1 trick --> declarer gets 9 tricks ? Equity check: Q: is declarer (the NOS) sufficiently compensated (get the same number of tricks he would get if the first revoke wouldn?t have occurred)? (L64C) -- A: Yes --> no need for rectification ? Second Revoke: before the second revoke declarer is entitled to 9 tricks ? L64A2 gives a penalty of 1 trick although declarer?s revoke didn?t affect the play --> declarer gets 8 tricks Equity check: Q: are defenders (the NOS) sufficiently compensated? (L64C) -- A: Yes --> no need for rectification. ? Is this equity in the case of both sides revoking on the same board? ? I don?t think so and imo this is the reason we need 64B7. ? Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111208/9e1f5b7c/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 8 15:56:39 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:56:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <9DEA0254-1CD6-45CA-A84F-C8A2C23F7565@starpower.net> On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:22:00 -0500, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 11/25/2011 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks >>> at his 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that >>> gains >>> them >>> a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks >>> and a >>> 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now declarer revokes in >>> a way >>> that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you >>> rule? >>> >>> This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve >> >> If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's an >> unambiguous >> +140 for me. No penalty tricks, but declarer gets back the trick >> defender's revoke cost him. > > There is no path to that ruling. Correct? But everyone else waives > their > hands and gets to +140 so there is no problem. > >> There are some wording problems in L64, but the principles seem >> clear to >> me (though not necessarily to a recent AC). > > Have you mentioned any principles? Perhaps I have not been clear. > How do > you get your ruling out of L12? It allows you to give declarer the > score > that would have occurred had the defense not revoked. That's +110. > So you > can't be using L64C, because that just refers you to L12. Right? Or do > people have their own personal way of assigning adjusted scores? > > I agree that there are ways of getting +140 out of this and that > almost > everyone finds them. I just don't think those ways involve > following the > laws. L12 says nothing about "declarer" or "the defense". It tells you to determine the score "had the irregularity not occurred". Since we started at L64B7 ("when both side have revoked..."), we have two irregularities and two offending sides, but, per the Introduction, "the singular includes the plural". Here "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularit[ies] not occurred" (both side are "offending" here) is the stipulated one, +140/-140. WTP? The "wording problem" Steve refers to is the second sentence of L64B2, "Law 64C may apply," which misleads the reader into failing to realize that L64C, per its own text, unambiguously applies to all parts of L64B. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 8 16:13:09 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:13:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <9DEA0254-1CD6-45CA-A84F-C8A2C23F7565@starpower.net> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <9DEA0254-1CD6-45CA-A84F-C8A2C23F7565@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:56:39 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:22:00 -0500, Steve Willner >> wrote: >> >>> On 11/25/2011 11:56 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks >>>> at his 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that >>>> gains >>>> them >>>> a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks >>>> and a >>>> 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now declarer revokes in >>>> a way >>>> that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you >>>> rule? >>>> >>>> This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve >>> >>> If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's an >>> unambiguous >>> +140 for me. No penalty tricks, but declarer gets back the trick >>> defender's revoke cost him. >> >> There is no path to that ruling. Correct? But everyone else waives >> their >> hands and gets to +140 so there is no problem. >> >>> There are some wording problems in L64, but the principles seem >>> clear to >>> me (though not necessarily to a recent AC). >> >> Have you mentioned any principles? Perhaps I have not been clear. >> How do >> you get your ruling out of L12? It allows you to give declarer the >> score >> that would have occurred had the defense not revoked. That's +110. >> So you >> can't be using L64C, because that just refers you to L12. Right? Or do >> people have their own personal way of assigning adjusted scores? >> >> I agree that there are ways of getting +140 out of this and that >> almost >> everyone finds them. I just don't think those ways involve >> following the >> laws. > > L12 says nothing about "declarer" or "the defense". It tells you to > determine the score "had the irregularity not occurred". Since we > started at L64B7 ("when both side have revoked..."), we have two > irregularities and two offending sides, but, per the Introduction, > "the singular includes the plural". Here "the most unfavorable > result that was at all probable had the irregularit[ies] not > occurred" (both side are "offending" here) is the stipulated one, > +140/-140. WTP? The WBFLC has gone out of its way to say that the revokes should not be "batched" for calculating equity. So, it has clearly said that your above method of doing this is wrong. "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." > > The "wording problem" Steve refers to is the second sentence of > L64B2, "Law 64C may apply," which misleads the reader into failing to > realize that L64C, per its own text, unambiguously applies to all > parts of L64B. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 8 16:30:57 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:30:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2011, at 2:01 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:55:43 -0500, wrote: > >> Robert Frick scenario: >> >>>>> Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his >>>>> 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes >>>>> in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, >>>>> leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a >>>>> 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now >>>>> declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. >>>>> So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? >>>>> >>>>> This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve >> >> The unambiguous Steve Willner: >> >>>> If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's >>>> an unambiguous +140 for me. No penalty tricks, >>>> but declarer gets back the trick defender's revoke >>>> cost him. >> >> Robert Frick rhetorical question: >> >>> There is no path to that ruling. Correct? > > There is no path to that ruling using the lawbook (and WBFLC > minutes). Are > you conceding that point and now arguing that at least the White > Book has > a path to the ruling? I will agree you can get to that ruling using > the > White Book. Or advice from blml for that matter. > > It seems to me that the White Book procedure leads to the exact same > ruling as "lumping the revokes together", which the WBFLC has said is > incorrect. Can you think of a counter-example? > > Perhaps you are assuming, for the purposes of calculating equity > for the > first revoke, that the second revoke will occur and that the second > revoke > will not occur. (If the second revoke is assumed to be occurring, then > declarer starts the hand with equity of +110 -- 9 tricks plus the > revoke > penalty.) But the situation, both before and after the first > revoke, is > that the second revoke hasn't occurred. > >> [snip] >> >> Joe de Bruyn rhetorical question at ALP conference: >> >> "Are we now going to suddenly turn our back on >> something which up until today we have said is a >> core value?" >> (Shouts of "Yes!", applause, cheering) >> >> EBU White Book, clause 64.2, Both sides revoke: >> >> Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer >> also revokes by over-ruffing. Both sides play to the >> next trick, which establishes the revokes: how does >> the Director rule? >> >> The Director should act under Law 64C to restore >> equity, as though there had been no revoke by >> either side. Law 64B7 makes it clear there are no >> rectification tricks. See #64.4. > > This clearly lumps the revokes together, which the WBFLC has said > is not > correct. Right? > >> 2009 WBFLC minutes, EBU White Book paraphrase: > > not a paraphrase. > >> When both sides have revoked on the same board >> each revoke is examined separately in assessing >> the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD >> acts as though there had been no revoke by either >> side. > > And the actual minute: 7. When both sides have revoked on the same > board > (Laws 64B7 and > 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity > when that revoke occurs. > > The second sentence again lumps the revokes together, erases them, and > then considers equity. > > Is logical thinking dead? This is getting very frustrating. There is no contradiction here. "When that revoke occurs" means at the precise moment the revoke occurs, which is before, not after, any penalty is assessed. Those un- (or not-yet-) assessed penalties have no effect on equity at that point (for either revoke), so the result will always be the same "as though there had been no revoke by either side". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 8 17:05:47 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:05:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <9DEA0254-1CD6-45CA-A84F-C8A2C23F7565@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1D11E5C5-0E9A-4BC3-8073-0F81E701B247@starpower.net> On Dec 8, 2011, at 2:01 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:55:43 -0500, wrote: > >> 2009 WBFLC minutes, EBU White Book paraphrase: > > not a paraphrase. > >> When both sides have revoked on the same board >> each revoke is examined separately in assessing >> the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD >> acts as though there had been no revoke by either >> side. On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:56:39 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> L12 says nothing about "declarer" or "the defense". It tells you to >> determine the score "had the irregularity not occurred". Since we >> started at L64B7 ("when both side have revoked..."), we have two >> irregularities and two offending sides, but, per the Introduction, >> "the singular includes the plural". Here "the most unfavorable >> result that was at all probable had the irregularit[ies] not >> occurred" (both side are "offending" here) is the stipulated one, >> +140/-140. WTP? > > The WBFLC has gone out of its way to say that the revokes should > not be > "batched" for calculating equity. ...in the first sentence above. Then they go out of their way, in the second sentence above, to point out that this makes no difference. > So, it has clearly said that your above method of doing this is wrong. My method is, "in effect," nothing more than "the TD acts as though there had been no revoke by either side". Isn't that what it says? > "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and > 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity > when that revoke occurs." To get to the equivalence in the second sentence merely requires that "each revoke [be] examined separately" with "no rectification as in A above" taken into account. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 8 17:49:48 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:49:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EE0EAAC.1040303@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/12/2011 16:30, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 8, 2011, at 2:01 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:55:43 -0500, wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick scenario: >>> >>>>>> Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his >>>>>> 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes >>>>>> in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, >>>>>> leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a >>>>>> 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now >>>>>> declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. >>>>>> So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? >>>>>> >>>>>> This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve >>> The unambiguous Steve Willner: >>> >>>>> If I'm "Steve," I have no idea where you got that; it's >>>>> an unambiguous +140 for me. No penalty tricks, >>>>> but declarer gets back the trick defender's revoke >>>>> cost him. >>> Robert Frick rhetorical question: >>> >>>> There is no path to that ruling. Correct? >> There is no path to that ruling using the lawbook (and WBFLC >> minutes). Are >> you conceding that point and now arguing that at least the White >> Book has >> a path to the ruling? I will agree you can get to that ruling using >> the >> White Book. Or advice from blml for that matter. >> >> It seems to me that the White Book procedure leads to the exact same >> ruling as "lumping the revokes together", which the WBFLC has said is >> incorrect. Can you think of a counter-example? >> >> Perhaps you are assuming, for the purposes of calculating equity >> for the >> first revoke, that the second revoke will occur and that the second >> revoke >> will not occur. (If the second revoke is assumed to be occurring, then >> declarer starts the hand with equity of +110 -- 9 tricks plus the >> revoke >> penalty.) But the situation, both before and after the first >> revoke, is >> that the second revoke hasn't occurred. >> >>> [snip] >>> >>> Joe de Bruyn rhetorical question at ALP conference: >>> >>> "Are we now going to suddenly turn our back on >>> something which up until today we have said is a >>> core value?" >>> (Shouts of "Yes!", applause, cheering) >>> >>> EBU White Book, clause 64.2, Both sides revoke: >>> >>> Suppose a defender revokes by ruffing, and declarer >>> also revokes by over-ruffing. Both sides play to the >>> next trick, which establishes the revokes: how does >>> the Director rule? >>> >>> The Director should act under Law 64C to restore >>> equity, as though there had been no revoke by >>> either side. Law 64B7 makes it clear there are no >>> rectification tricks. See #64.4. >> This clearly lumps the revokes together, which the WBFLC has said >> is not >> correct. Right? >> >>> 2009 WBFLC minutes, EBU White Book paraphrase: >> not a paraphrase. >> >>> When both sides have revoked on the same board >>> each revoke is examined separately in assessing >>> the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD >>> acts as though there had been no revoke by either >>> side. >> And the actual minute: 7. When both sides have revoked on the same >> board >> (Laws 64B7 and >> 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity >> when that revoke occurs. >> >> The second sentence again lumps the revokes together, erases them, and >> then considers equity. >> >> Is logical thinking dead? This is getting very frustrating. > There is no contradiction here. "When that revoke occurs" means at > the precise moment the revoke occurs, which is before, not after, any > penalty is assessed. Those un- (or not-yet-) assessed penalties have > no effect on equity at that point (for either revoke), so the result > will always be the same "as though there had been no revoke by either > side". > > AG : in this case, it will most of the time lead to a split score. Is that intended ? For the sake of simplicity, say that the revokes didn't affect later play. Both sides will then be simultaneously penalized by one trick. I have no problems with such a ruling, but I want to check whether everybody is conscious of what it will mean. Best regards alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 8 17:49:40 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:49:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1323355156.44036.YahooMailNeo@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1323355156.44036.YahooMailNeo@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:39:16 -0500, Anda Enciu wrote: > >> Robert Frick scenario: >> Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his Spades contract >> for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick and >> changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a 1-trick > revoke penalty for the same +140. > Now declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. > So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? > Anda: > For the sake of the argument let?s use the wording suggested by Ton: > 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks' for L64A and L64B; ?rectification? > for L64C. > Also, let?s summarize: > L64B7 - There are no penalties when both sides have revoked on the same > board. > L64C ? But, might be a rectification under Law 64C in order to restore > equity > Restore equity = in this case, give each side the number of tricks > they would have if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred. > Bob?s scenario: Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. > 1. The defence revokes (in a way that gains them a trick and changes > play), > leaving declarer with 8 tricks. > 2. Later on, declarer revokes (in a way that does not affect play), > leaving declarer with the same 8 tricks. > Since the case is ?both sides have revoked on the same board? director > (a) first applies L64B7 and then (b) applies L64C. > (a) there are not penalties (L64B7) --> so far declarer gets 8 tricks > (b) equity check: Q: did declarer make the same number of tricks he would > get if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred? (L64C) -- A: No --> > a rectification is needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks Thank you for slowly stepping through your ruling. I can see where we disagree. You are "batching" the irregularities, asking what would have happened had they both not occurred. We don't do that for irregularites -- we always consider them separately, right? Admittedly there is a powerful psychological drive to batch two revokes together, both for L64B2 and L64B7. But the WBFLC has clarified that they should not be batched. "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." > Now, let?s go back to Bob?s main concern in this article: Do we need > L64B7? > and see what happens if we treat the case of ?both sides have revoked on > the same board? as 2 separate cases. > Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. > First revoke: > declarer makes 8 tricks - L64A2 gives a penalty of 1 trick --> declarer > gets 9 tricks > Equity check: Q: is declarer (the NOS) sufficiently compensated (get the > same number of tricks he would get if the first revoke wouldn?t have > occurred)? (L64C) -- A: Yes --> no need for rectification > Second Revoke: before the second revoke declarer is entitled to 9 tricks > L64A2 gives a penalty of 1 trick although declarer?s revoke didn?t > affect > the play --> declarer gets 8 tricks > Equity check: Q: are defenders (the NOS) sufficiently compensated? (L64C) > -- A: Yes --> no need for rectification. > Is this equity in the case of both sides revoking on the same board? > I don?t think so and imo this is the reason we need 64B7. It will always be more equitable to remove the revoke penalties and calculate equity. Even when there is only one revoke. The WBFLC could change the law to that for all revokes. Then all revokes rulings will be more equitable. They would of course be a pain in the butt for directors. Right? I am giving you simple cases where there are no judgments other than following the rules. The law was built upon revokes occurring at trick 11, where it is easy to calculate equity. So the logic is this -- if it is better to use a simple but punitive system, what do we gain by using a different system when there are two revokes? Or if it is better to use the difficult but more equitable way, why not use that for all revokes? (Or, put another way, why have a special law just to use a suboptimal method?) > > Anda -- http://somepsychology.com From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 19:13:55 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:13:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1323355156.44036.YahooMailNeo@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323368035.10337.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> > Robert Frick scenario: ? Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? ? >? Anda: ? For the sake of the argument let?s use the wording suggested by Ton: 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks' for L64A and L64B; ?rectification? for L64C. ? Also, let?s summarize: L64B7 - There are no penalties when both sides have revoked on the same board. L64C ? But, might be a rectification under Law 64C in order to restore equity Restore equity = in this case, give each side the number of tricks they would have if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred. ? Bob?s scenario: Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. ? 1. The defence revokes (in a way that gains them a trick and changes play), leaving declarer with 8 tricks. ? 2. Later on, declarer revokes (in a way that does not affect play), leaving declarer with the same 8 tricks. ? Since the case is ?both sides have revoked on the same board? director (a) first applies L64B7 and then (b) applies L64C. ? (a) there are not penalties (L64B7) --> so far declarer gets 8 tricks (b) equity check: Q: did declarer make the same number of tricks he would get if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred? (L64C) -- A: No --> a rectification is needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks ? > Bob: Thank you for slowly stepping through your ruling. I can see where we? disagree. ? You are "batching" the irregularities, asking what would have happened had? they both not occurred. ? ...But the WBFLC has clarified that they should not be batched. "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." ? ? Anda: ? Actually I didn?t ?batch? the revokes, I only wanted to write a concise Equity Check and as I didn?t see a need for rectification after revoke 2, I skipped it. ? BTW, I think that a better wording is "did the OS gain from the revoke?" ? (b) Equity check revoke 1: Q: did the OS (the defenders) gain??-- A: Yes --> a rectification is needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks ? (b) Equity check revoke 2: Q: did the OS (declarer) gain? -- A: No --> no rectification needed ? ??Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111208/0d434803/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 8 19:50:24 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:50:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1323368035.10337.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1323355156.44036.YahooMailNeo@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1323368035.10337.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:13:55 -0500, Anda Enciu wrote: > >> Robert Frick scenario: > Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his Spades contract > for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick and > changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a 1-trick > revoke penalty for the same +140. > Now declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. > So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? > >> Anda: > For the sake of the argument let?s use the wording suggested by Ton: > 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks' for L64A and L64B; ?rectification? > for L64C. > Also, let?s summarize: > L64B7 - There are no penalties when both sides have revoked on the same > board. > L64C ? But, might be a rectification under Law 64C in order to restore > equity > Restore equity = in this case, give each side the number of tricks > they would have if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred. > Bob?s scenario: Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. > 1. The defence revokes (in a way that gains them a trick and changes > play), > leaving declarer with 8 tricks. > 2. Later on, declarer revokes (in a way that does not affect play), > leaving declarer with the same 8 tricks. > Since the case is ?both sides have revoked on the same board? director > (a) first applies L64B7 and then (b) applies L64C. > (a) there are not penalties (L64B7) --> so far declarer gets 8 tricks > (b) equity check: Q: did declarer make the same number of tricks he would > get if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred? (L64C) -- A: No --> > a rectification is needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks > >> Bob: > Thank you for slowly stepping through your ruling. I can see where we > disagree. > You are "batching" the irregularities, asking what would have happened > hadthey both not occurred. > ...But the WBFLC has clarified that they should not be batched. > "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and > 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity > when that revoke occurs." > Anda: > Actually I didn?t ?batch? the revokes, I only wanted to write a concise > Equity Check and as I didn?t see a need for rectification after revoke 2, > I skipped it. > BTW, I think that a better wording is "did the OS gain from the revoke?" > (b) Equity check revoke 1: > Q: did the OS (the defenders) gain? -- A: Yes --> a rectification is > needed --> > declarer gets 9 tricks Declarer was on track to get +140 before the revoke. After the revoke, declarer was on track to get +140. So the defense did not gain from the revoke. *If* you think the defenders gained from the first revoke, then you are authorized to give declarer the score he would have gotten had the revoke not occurred. That's +110. This time you did not carefully step through your ruling, you made some biggish jump.s > (b) Equity check revoke 2: > Q: did the OS (declarer) gain? -- A: No --> no rectification needed > Anda -- http://somepsychology.com From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 21:07:10 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 12:07:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1323355156.44036.YahooMailNeo@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1323368035.10337.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1323374830.7027.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> > Robert Frick scenario: Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? >? Anda: For the sake of the argument let?s use the wording suggested by Ton: 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks' for L64A and L64B; ?rectification? for L64C. Also, let?s summarize: L64B7 - There are no penalties when both sides have revoked on the same?? board. L64C ? But, might be a rectification under Law 64C in order to restore?? equity Restore equity = in this case, give each side the number of tricks they would have if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred. Bob?s scenario: Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. 1. The defence revokes (in a way that gains them a trick and changes?? play),?leaving declarer with 8 tricks. 2. Later on, declarer revokes (in a way that does not affect play), leaving declarer with the same 8 tricks. Since the case is ?both sides have revoked on the same board? director (a) first applies L64B7 and then (b) applies L64C. (a) there are not penalties (L64B7) --> so far declarer gets 8 tricks (b) equity check: Q: did declarer make the same number of tricks he would get if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred? (L64C) -- A: No --> a rectification is needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks > Bob: Thank you for slowly stepping through your ruling. I can see where we? disagree. You are "batching" the irregularities, asking what would have happened?? hadthey both not occurred. ...But the WBFLC has clarified that they should not be batched. "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." >? Anda: Actually I didn?t ?batch? the revokes, I only wanted to write a concise Equity Check and as I didn?t see a need for rectification after revoke 2, I skipped it. BTW, I think that a better wording is "did the OS gain from the revoke?" (b) Equity check revoke 1: Q: did the OS (the defenders) gain? -- A: Yes --> a rectification is?? needed -->?declarer gets 9 tricks (b) Equity check revoke 2: Q: did the OS (declarer) gain? -- A: No --> no rectification needed > Bob: Declarer was on track to get +140 before the revoke. After the revoke,?declarer was on track to get +140. So the defense did not gain from the?revoke. Anda: ?? Read carefully again your own scenario on the top: "Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks" > Bob:? *If* you think the defenders gained from the first revoke, then you are?authorized to give declarer the score he would have gotten had the revoke? not occurred. That's +110. First, 'defenders gaining a trick from the first revoke' is?your hypothesis. Second, "to give declarer the score he would have gotten had the [first] revoke?not occurred" that is +140 ["declarer is on track to make 9 tricks"]. >This time you did not carefully step through your ruling, you made some? biggish jump.s Unfounded and unnecessarily comment.? Why behold thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111208/580d1cf2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 8 22:10:41 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 08:10:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Joe de Bruyn second rhetorical question at ALP conference: Are we really going to say that something that we regarded as fundamental all this time, we should now turn on its head? (Shouts of "Yes!") Robert Frick rhetorical question: >>There is no path to that ruling. Correct? Richard Hills answer: Incorrect. Robert Frick assertion: >There is no path to that ruling using the lawbook (and >WBFLC minutes). Richard Hills answer: Incorrect. Robert Frick second rhetorical question: >Are you conceding that point Richard Hills answer: No. Robert Frick obtuseness: >and now arguing that at least the White Book has a >path to the ruling? I will agree you can get to that >ruling using the White Book. Richard Hills answer: Not even wrong. As other blmlers have carefully explained to a persistently obtuse Robert Frick, the White Book's clarification of the WBFLC minute is the logical consequence of that WBFLC minute. And the WBFLC minute's clarification of Law 64B7 is the logical consequence of that Law 64B7. Robert Frick, blmler: >Or advice from blml for that matter. > >It seems to me [snip] Richard Hills, blmler: It seems to me that Robert Frick is a dyed-in-the- wool contrarian, whose postulates differ from other blmlers' postulates, hence his obtuseness. Thus resolutions by logical debate between Bob and other blmlers are impossible. Isaac Asimov, I Robot (1950): ??we?ve got to do something.? Donovan was half in tears. ?He doesn?t believe us, or the books, or his eyes.? ?No,? said Powell bitterly, ?he?s a reasoning robot ? damn it. He believes only reason, and there?s one trouble with that?? His voice trailed away. ?What?s that? prompted Donovan. ?You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason ? if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his.? ?Then let?s get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm?s due tomorrow.? Powell sighed wearily. ?That?s where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them.? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111208/a1a6c2b5/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 8 22:46:23 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:46:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The fabulous Law book -- keep Law 64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1323374830.7027.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1323355156.44036.YahooMailNeo@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1323368035.10337.YahooMailNeo@web65405.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <1323374830.7027.YahooMailNeo@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:07:10 -0500, Anda Enciu wrote: > > > >> Robert Frick scenario: Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks > at his Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains > them a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks > and a 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. > > Now declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. > So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? > >> Anda: For the sake of the argument let?s use the wording suggested by >> Ton: > 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks' for L64A and L64B; ?rectification? for > L64C. > > Also, let?s summarize: > L64B7 - There are no penalties when both sides have revoked on the same > board. > L64C ? But, might be a rectification under Law 64C in order to restore > equity > Restore equity = in this case, give each side the number of tricks > they would have if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred. > > Bob?s scenario: Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks for +140. > 1. The defence revokes (in a way that gains them a trick and changes > play), leaving declarer with 8 tricks. > 2. Later on, declarer revokes (in a way that does not affect play), > leaving declarer with the same 8 tricks. > > Since the case is ?both sides have revoked on the same board? director > (a) first applies L64B7 and then (b) applies L64C. > > (a) there are not penalties (L64B7) --> so far declarer gets 8 tricks > (b) equity check: Q: did declarer make the same number of tricks he would > get if the revokes wouldn?t have occurred? (L64C) -- A: No --> > a rectification is needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks > >> Bob: > Thank you for slowly stepping through your ruling. I can see where we > disagree. > You are "batching" the irregularities, asking what would have happened > hadthey both not occurred. > ...But the WBFLC has clarified that they should not be batched. > "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and > 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity > when that revoke occurs." > >> Anda: > Actually I didn?t ?batch? the revokes, I only wanted to write a concise > Equity Check and as I didn?t see a need for rectification after revoke 2, > I skipped it. > > BTW, I think that a better wording is "did the OS gain from the revoke?" > > (b) Equity check revoke 1: > Q: did the OS (the defenders) gain? -- A: Yes --> a rectification is > needed --> declarer gets 9 tricks > > (b) Equity check revoke 2: > Q: did the OS (declarer) gain? -- A: No --> no rectification needed > >> Bob: Declarer was on track to get +140 before the revoke. After the > revoke, declarer was on track to get +140. So the defense did not gain > from the revoke. > > Anda: > ?? > Read carefully again your own scenario on the top: > "Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at > his Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes > in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, > leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks" > >> Bob: *If* you think the defenders gained from the first revoke, then >> you > are authorized to give declarer the score he would have gotten had the > revokenot occurred. That's +110. > > First, 'defenders gaining a trick from the first revoke' is your > hypothesis. > Second, "to give declarer the score he would have gotten had the > [first] revoke not occurred" that is +140 ["declarer is on track to > make 9 tricks"]. > >> This time you did not carefully step through your ruling, you made some > biggish jump.s > > Unfounded and unnecessarily comment.Why behold thou the mote that is in > thy brother's > eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own > eye? Okay, maybe we need to start with the first example. You were walking in on the second example. It is a simple play for +140. Declarer revokes in a way that makes no difference in play. So declarer is headed for 9 tricks minus 1 for the revoke, +110. Then defenders revoke in a way that gains them a trick. So declarer takes 8 tricks. So it is +110 without the revoke penalties. Is it clear here that the defense did not gain from their revoke? And hence L64C does not apply? If you apply L64C, you get to L12, which asks you to give declarer the score he would have gotten had the opponents not revoked. That is, given, as +110. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 9 03:02:30 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:02:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <1D11E5C5-0E9A-4BC3-8073-0F81E701B247@starpower.net> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <9DEA0254-1CD6-45CA-A84F-C8A2C23F7565@starpower.net> <1D11E5C5-0E9A-4BC3-8073-0F81E701B247@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:05:47 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 8, 2011, at 2:01 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:55:43 -0500, wrote: >> >>> 2009 WBFLC minutes, EBU White Book paraphrase: >> >> not a paraphrase. >> >>> When both sides have revoked on the same board >>> each revoke is examined separately in assessing >>> the equity when that revoke occurs. In effect the TD >>> acts as though there had been no revoke by either >>> side. > > > On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:56:39 -0500, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> L12 says nothing about "declarer" or "the defense". It tells you to >>> determine the score "had the irregularity not occurred". Since we >>> started at L64B7 ("when both side have revoked..."), we have two >>> irregularities and two offending sides, but, per the Introduction, >>> "the singular includes the plural". Here "the most unfavorable >>> result that was at all probable had the irregularit[ies] not >>> occurred" (both side are "offending" here) is the stipulated one, >>> +140/-140. WTP? >> >> The WBFLC has gone out of its way to say that the revokes should >> not be >> "batched" for calculating equity. > > ...in the first sentence above. Then they go out of their way, in > the second sentence above, to point out that this makes no difference. I am pretty sure the second sentence is from the White Book. The WBFLC is "When both sides have revoked on the same board each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." The rest is pure White Book. I agree you are following the White Book perfectly. > >> So, it has clearly said that your above method of doing this is wrong. > > My method is, "in effect," nothing more than "the TD acts as though > there had been no revoke by either side". Isn't that what it says? That's the White Book part. It just doesn't follow the laws. The law seems to be very specifically to consider each infraction separately, and that consideration seems to be very clearly that, if there is damage, to give the side what they would have gotten had the infraction not occurred. If it doesn't occur, then there is no cancelling of revoke penalties. > >> "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and >> 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity >> when that revoke occurs." > > To get to the equivalence in the second sentence merely requires that > "each revoke [be] examined separately" with "no rectification as in A > above" taken into account. You are calculating what would have happened had the player *not revoked* (L12), while already having assuming that they *did revoke* (which is the only reason there is no rectification as in A). From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Dec 9 04:29:36 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:29:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> On 12/7/2011 10:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > But everyone else waives their > hands and gets to +140 so there is no problem. I'm not sure what's so hard, but maybe Robert is confusing revokes by both sides with the very different case of multiple revokes by the same side. If both sides revoke, all penalty tricks go away. Gone. Vanished! _Then_ you restore equity under L64C, effectively obtaining the result of what would have happened with no revokes. In general it's a bit more complicated that that because you treat each side as OS for their own revokes and NOS for the other side's revokes, so you may end with weighted or split scores, but Robert's example cases had no such complications. If only one side revokes, equity for revokes after the first one _does_ include penalty tricks. That's entirely different. This seems obvious to me, but maybe the wording of L64 needs to be improved to put it beyond doubt. Also, as Robert correctly pointed out earlier, the word "established" needs to be added in key places. However, I don't see any great difficulty or lack of logic. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 9 20:58:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 06:58:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1323124471.3175.YahooMailNeo@web27901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Law 81B2: The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Law 85A1: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. Robert Frick: >>I decided to keep a log. My first claim of mispull came >>tonight! It was a Blackwood response, which is known >>to be particularly difficult to pull the right bidding card >>for. She was sincere that she pulled the wrong card. >>(But I don't allow that change as a matter of policy. >>Hmm, but the owner asked why.) Richard Hills: Policy cannot override Law (Law 81B2 "is bound by"). Sure my guesstimate is that an erroneous Blackwood response would be correctly ruled under Law 25B an overwhelming 90% of the time, but correctly ruled under Law 25A a mere 10% of the time. But that does not permit a Director to arbitrarily rule that Law 25B applies 100% of the time. Rather, Law 85A1 requires the Director to collect and weigh evidence. Sure the self-serving evidence given by the Blackwood responder is of little weight. But "little weight" is _not_ synonymous with "zero weight". Furthermore, perhaps ethical opponents will be able to give weightier evidence against their own interests. Alan Hill: >...Most of the time the opposition know whether the bid >can be changed because they see the bidder's reaction. >Ethics! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111209/2ab4d30c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 9 21:43:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:43:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens, page 172: His questing finger moved slowly down the page and stopped. Good old International Codes. They'd been devised eighty years before, but the men in those days had really thought hard about the kind of perils that might possibly be encountered on the deep. He picked up his pen and wrote down: "XXXV QVVX". Translated, it meant: "Have found Lost Continent of Atlantis. High Priest has just won quoits contest." Steve Willner: >I'm not sure what's so hard, but maybe Robert is confusing >revokes by both sides with the very different case of multiple >revokes by the same side. > >If both sides revoke, all penalty tricks go away. Gone. >Vanished! _Then_ you restore equity under L64C, effectively >obtaining the result of what would have happened with no >revokes. Richard Hills: So far agreed. Another way of looking at it is that as soon as a revoke is established it has a _potential_ deduction of one trick (or two tricks) attached to it, but this _potential_ deduction cannot become an _actual_ deduction until the end of play when the Director adjusts the score. For example, at the end of play the initial Director adjustment (before possible application of Law 64C) will be a deduction of zero tricks "if the offending side did not win either the revoke trick or any subsequent trick". Steve Willner: >In general it's a bit more complicated than that because you >treat each side as OS for their own revokes and NOS for the >other side's revokes, so you may end with weighted or split >scores, but Robert's example cases had no such >complications. [snip] Richard Hills: Agree that a weighted score is legal (except in ACBL-land). Disagree that any complications whatsoever permit a legal split score, due to the special circumstance that both sides are necessarily non-offending sides and also that both sides are necessarily offending sides. Law 12B1, Objectives of Score Adjustment: The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111209/4c7b39a4/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 10 02:15:09 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:15:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:29:36 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 12/7/2011 10:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> But everyone else waives their >> hands and gets to +140 so there is no problem. > > I'm not sure what's so hard, but maybe Robert is confusing revokes by > both sides with the very different case of multiple revokes by the same > side. > > If both sides revoke, all penalty tricks go away. Gone. Vanished! > _Then_ you restore equity under L64C, effectively obtaining the result > of what would have happened with no revokes. In general it's a bit more > complicated that that because you treat each side as OS for their own > revokes and NOS for the other side's revokes, so you may end with > weighted or split scores, but Robert's example cases had no such > complications. > > If only one side revokes, equity for revokes after the first one _does_ > include penalty tricks. That's entirely different. > > This seems obvious to me, but maybe the wording of L64 needs to be > improved to put it beyond doubt. Also, as Robert correctly pointed out > earlier, the word "established" needs to be added in key places. > However, I don't see any great difficulty or lack of logic. Thank you. It is nice to have an intelligent conversation on this. But, L64C does not authorize me to restore equity. If it did, then I too would be getting to the +140 answer. L64 only allows me to give an adjusted score. L12 also, as near as I can tell, does not authorize me to restore equity. If I thought it did, I too would be getting the +140 answer. Instead, L12 entitles me to give the NOS the score they would have gotten had their been no infraction. If the singular can be the plural and I batch the infractions and ask the question what would have happened had the infactions not occurred, then again I get to the +140 answer. However, we never batch the infractions, and we all accept that batching the infractions doesn't work for two revokes by the same player in the same suit. And if someone wanted to argue that we do not batch infractions for L64B2 but we do for L64B7, they would have the problem that the WBFLC has clearly and specifically minuted differently. Maybe the question is how to apply L12. One way is to give the NOS what they would have given had the infraction not occurred. That is what I am doing. It seems to correspond exactly to how the law is written. The other way is to first remove the penalties, because the infraction did occur, and then give them the score that they would have gotten had the infraction not occurred. Which doesn't make any sense to me because in this case there would have been a penalty for the other revoke if the infraction had not occurred. Or anyone, how do you get off this path to get +140? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 10 16:51:13 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:51:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:43:55 -0500, wrote: > Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens, page 172: > > His questing finger moved slowly down the page and > stopped. Good old International Codes. They'd been > devised eighty years before, but the men in those days had > really thought hard about the kind of perils that might > possibly be encountered on the deep. > > He picked up his pen and wrote down: "XXXV QVVX". > > Translated, it meant: "Have found Lost Continent of Atlantis. > High Priest has just won quoits contest." > > Steve Willner: > >> I'm not sure what's so hard, but maybe Robert is confusing >> revokes by both sides with the very different case of multiple >> revokes by the same side. >> >> If both sides revoke, all penalty tricks go away. Gone. >> Vanished! _Then_ you restore equity under L64C, effectively >> obtaining the result of what would have happened with no >> revokes. > > Richard Hills: > > So far agreed. Another way of looking at it is that as soon as a > revoke is established it has a _potential_ deduction of one > trick (or two tricks) attached to it, but this _potential_ deduction > cannot become an _actual_ deduction until the end of play > when the Director adjusts the score. The short story is, this leads to the wrong ruling for L64B2 cases, hence is not viable. Thank you for suggesting this path to +140. It was plausible and I have wandered confusedly along it. I think it is useful to discuss it. Long story. The method you are using is this: Assess the situation before the infraction, assess the situation after the infraction, and if the OS has gained, use L64C/L12 to give the NOS their score before the infraction. This leads somewhat naturally to a consideration of when the revoke penalty occurs. When the revoke first occurs? When it is established? At the end of the hand? When the director makes his ruling? If a law makes us decide this, I think we have a problem -- this is kind of a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin question. If the only reason we need to consider it is to handle L64B7, that's one more reason to eliminate it. But the question can and should be avoided. Prior to the second revoke, the situation is that declarer has or will get a revoke penalty if there is no second revoke. So when we calculate what would have happened had the second revoke not occurred, we do not have to decide when the penalty for the first revoke occurs. The L64B2 ruling. Declarer is on track to make 9 tricks. Declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. What is equity at this point? Richard says +140, because we do not yet consider the revoke penalty. Now declarer revokes in the same suit in a way that gains several tricks, putting declarer let's say to +200. Using Richard's method, equity before the revoke was +140, so we give declarer +140. It is well-accepted that the proper way to analyze this is that, following the revoke, declarer was on track to get +110 and declarer should be awarded +110. > > For example, at the end of play the initial Director adjustment > (before possible application of Law 64C) will be a deduction > of zero tricks "if the offending side did not win either the revoke > trick or any subsequent trick". > From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Dec 10 19:07:32 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:07:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EE39FE4.7010704@nhcc.net> I am finding this thread incredibly frustrating because all the answers seem completely obvious to me. Unless some entirely new point is raised, this will be my last contribution to the thread. On 12/9/2011 8:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > But, L64C does not authorize me to restore equity. Law 12C tells what scores to assign. Whether you consider that "restoring equity" or something else is unimportant. > However, we never batch the infractions, Correct. This is where Richard went wrong in his assertion that we can't have split scores. Each revoke has an OS and an NOS, and if multiple results are possible if the revoke(s) had not occurred, you will have a weighted score in most jurisdictions. In the ACBL, we can't have a weighted score, but depending on the probabilities of the results, we may have a split score. > Maybe the question is how to apply L12. One way is to give the NOS what > they would have given had the infraction not occurred. Yes, but apply L64B7 (if appropriate) first. If instead only one side has revoked, apply L12 to each separate revoke. OK, I'm done. Good luck to anyone who wants to pursue this further. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 11 02:05:52 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:05:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <4EE39FE4.7010704@nhcc.net> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> <4EE39FE4.7010704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:07:32 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > I am finding this thread incredibly frustrating because all the answers > seem completely obvious to me. Unless some entirely new point is > raised, this will be my last contribution to the thread. You don't want to discuss this for another 15 years? You are giving the White Book answer. Thanks for clarifying that. Bob > > On 12/9/2011 8:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> But, L64C does not authorize me to restore equity. > > Law 12C tells what scores to assign. Whether you consider that > "restoring equity" or something else is unimportant. > >> However, we never batch the infractions, > > Correct. This is where Richard went wrong in his assertion that we > can't have split scores. Each revoke has an OS and an NOS, and if > multiple results are possible if the revoke(s) had not occurred, you > will have a weighted score in most jurisdictions. In the ACBL, we can't > have a weighted score, but depending on the probabilities of the > results, we may have a split score. > >> Maybe the question is how to apply L12. One way is to give the NOS what >> they would have given had the infraction not occurred. > > Yes, but apply L64B7 (if appropriate) first. If instead only one side > has revoked, apply L12 to each separate revoke. > > OK, I'm done. Good luck to anyone who wants to pursue this further. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 11 03:11:06 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:11:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 14:58:01 -0500, wrote: If you want to criticize, you have to know that the ACBL says "The onus is on the player to convince the director that a mechanical irregularity has occured." And Nigel is write about cheating, this is a great guideline. It is very convenient to have general policies instead of just taking everyone at their word. Were you not listening to what Nigel said? The ACBL suggests one: "Calls from different pockets should rarely, if at all, be judged as inadvertent." I think they should add step-responses to this list. log. Player claims she meant to pull 1NT instead of 2C. RHO has already overcalled 2D. She has some confusing story about things between twisted around in her box. But she is left handed and was playing with a left handed box that had right-handed bidding cards for the top row. I don't want to figure it out. Anyway, how could someone decide to open 2C (22+ or less with a very distribution hand) and change their mind to 1NT? Easy ruling of mispull. Nigel, I think this is a good example of letting people play bridge. Bob > Law 81B2: > > The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and > supplementary regulations announced under authority > given in these Laws. > > Law 85A1: > > In determining the facts the Director shall base his view > on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in > accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able > to collect. > > Robert Frick: > >>> I decided to keep a log. My first claim of mispull came >>> tonight! It was a Blackwood response, which is known >>> to be particularly difficult to pull the right bidding card >>> for. She was sincere that she pulled the wrong card. >>> (But I don't allow that change as a matter of policy. >>> Hmm, but the owner asked why.) > > Richard Hills: > > Policy cannot override Law (Law 81B2 "is bound by"). > > Sure my guesstimate is that an erroneous Blackwood > response would be correctly ruled under Law 25B an > overwhelming 90% of the time, but correctly ruled under > Law 25A a mere 10% of the time. But that does not > permit a Director to arbitrarily rule that Law 25B applies > 100% of the time. Rather, Law 85A1 requires the Director > to collect and weigh evidence. > > Sure the self-serving evidence given by the Blackwood > responder is of little weight. But "little weight" is _not_ > synonymous with "zero weight". Furthermore, perhaps > ethical opponents will be able to give weightier evidence > against their own interests. > > Alan Hill: > >> ...Most of the time the opposition know whether the bid >> can be changed because they see the bidder's reaction. >> Ethics! > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 11 03:24:41 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:24:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> <4EE39FE4.7010704@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <22E05A83-D19B-40F6-95E1-9772B647BAAA@mac.com> This thread is a perfect example of why I left blml. I'm beginning to regret having come back. :-) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Dec 11 06:18:49 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:18:49 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no><1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de><4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net><4EE39FE4.7010704@nhcc.net> <22E05A83-D19B-40F6-95E1-9772B647BAAA@mac.com> Message-ID: From: "Ed Reppert" > This thread is a perfect example of why I left blml. I'm beginning to > regret having come back. :-) I felt the same way a while ago and unsubscribed. Since my return I have been careful to sort the inbox by subject and then do a mass delete of a subject that has been thrashed to death. Doesn't take much time. We need smart people like you Ed, please stay on. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Dec 11 08:38:23 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:38:23 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no><1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de><4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net><4EE39FE4.7010704@nhcc.net> <22E05A83-D19B-40F6-95E1-9772B647BAAA@mac.com> Message-ID: Ah ! The dreaded Blml Babel babble, Bah ! Still, the occasional erudite offering makes up for it, and there is a marvellous gadget called 'delete'. L > This thread is a perfect example of why I left blml. I'm beginning to > regret having come back. :-) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 11 17:09:15 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:09:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <22E05A83-D19B-40F6-95E1-9772B647BAAA@mac.com> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> <4EDEDBD8.1040608@nhcc.net> <4EE180A0.6010707@nhcc.net> <4EE39FE4.7010704@nhcc.net> <22E05A83-D19B-40F6-95E1-9772B647BAAA@mac.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:24:41 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > This thread is a perfect example of why I left blml. I'm beginning to > regret having come back. :-) Sorry about that. It is useful for me to know that blmler's universally rule +140 in the situation being considered. I thank everyone who contributed their ruling. Sorting through the garbage, a few blmlers specified how they would get to +140 (Eric, Steve, maybe others) or suggested a way to get to +140 (Richard). That was useful to me too. So I had to provoke people to explain their ruling. I thank Richard, Steve, Eric, and anyone else I forgot who said how they would actually make that ruling. If anyone else wants to discuss this law or explain their ruling, I am glad to listen, but please do it offlist. Bob From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Dec 11 21:50:33 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:50:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Wheee Message-ID: <25C6EC37134249059B6C75D274E04EFF@changeme1> Well done Frances & Co. --------------------------------------------- Should you decide to defuse a bomb, don't worry which wire to cut. Simply wait for the convenient red-numbered clock to read 1 sec. and you will always choose the right one. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Dec 11 23:36:44 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:36:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Blml Babel babble, Bah ! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Larry: >>>Ah ! The dreaded Blml Babel babble, Bah ! Blml babbler: >>Policy cannot override Law (Law 81B2 "is bound by"). [snip] Robert: [snip] >It is very convenient to have general policies instead of >just taking everyone at their word. [snip] Richard: Straw man argument / false dichotomy / begging the question. No sensible Director takes everyone at their word. Even when I insensibly directed I did not take everyone at their word. Indeed, as Director I was especially careful to seek objective evidence when a friend gave his word. And this is the Bridge Laws Mailing List, not the Bridge 7-Eleven Convenience Store. Larry: >>>Still, the occasional erudite offering makes up for it, >>>and there is a marvellous gadget called 'delete'. Erudite offering: Simon Eroro, a reporter for the Post-Courier newspaper in Papua New Guinea, really wanted to get a story to expose how Free West Papua militants from Indonesia were getting across the border into PNG. "The impact of Simon's scoop was enormous," said the judges of an in-house journalism prize for News Limited reporters; the company employs Eroro. "The police commissioner launched a major operation to tighten the borders and close down the [Free West Papua] refugee camps." But to get that scoop -- to interview a group of "jungle rebels" who rarely let journalists in -- Eroro had to agree to first allow himself to be circumcised with bamboo sticks. He did, they did, and he got the scoop and the company award. (RC/London Telegraph) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111211/05a27cb8/attachment.html From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Mon Dec 12 01:34:00 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:34:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Blml Babel babble, Bah ! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 5:36 PM, wrote: > Larry: > > >>>Ah ! The dreaded Blml Babel babble, Bah ! > > Blml babbler: > > >>Policy cannot override Law (Law 81B2 "is bound by"). > [snip] > > Robert: > > [snip] > >It is very convenient to have general policies instead of > >just taking everyone at their word. > [snip] > > Richard: > > Straw man argument / false dichotomy / begging the > question. > > No sensible Director takes everyone at their word. Even > when I insensibly directed I did not take everyone at their > word. Indeed, as Director I was especially careful to seek > objective evidence when a friend gave his word. > > And this is the Bridge Laws Mailing List, not the Bridge > 7-Eleven Convenience Store. > > Larry: > > >>>Still, the occasional erudite offering makes up for it, > >>>and there is a marvellous gadget called 'delete'. > > Erudite offering: > > Simon Eroro, a reporter for the Post-Courier newspaper > in Papua New Guinea, really wanted to get a story to > expose how Free West Papua militants from Indonesia > were getting across the border into PNG. "The impact > of Simon's scoop was enormous," said the judges of an > in-house journalism prize for News Limited reporters; > the company employs Eroro. "The police commissioner > launched a major operation to tighten the borders and > close down the [Free West Papua] refugee camps." But > to get that scoop -- to interview a group of "jungle > rebels" who rarely let journalists in -- Eroro had to agree > to first allow himself to be circumcised with bamboo > sticks. He did, they did, and he got the scoop and the > company award. (RC/London Telegraph) > > Is Richard suggesting some sort of shibboleth for the inner sanctum of BLML? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111212/7a7b65b2/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 12 04:27:04 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:27:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed change in L40C3 Message-ID: Any comments welcome L40C3: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Suggested rewrite: "Unless *part of the conditions of contest*, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any *artificial* aids to his memory, calculation or technique." ARTIFICIAL The important addition here is the word "artificial". As far as I know, directors know what is allowed and what isn't allowed and rule accordingly. The law could be that "players aren't entitled to any aids they shouldn't be using" and directors would do fine. So the goal of the law should be to write guidance that corresponds to the directors' rulings. I don't know if that is possible to do completely, but the word "artificial" seems to help a lot. Technically, the 2007 law bans the use of mnemonics, which are defined as aids to memory. Or, I presume people are allowed to count on their fingers, even though they are not allowed to write on their fingers. Other technical difficulties with the current are not hard to find. I believe the current law prohibits the use of prayer *if* prayer is effective. No one wants to rule on the effectiveness of prayer. And the current law seems to prohibit caffeine. CONDITIONS OF CONTEST I am sure it is just me, but.... the vulnerability is marked on the boards. Even though that is an artificial aid, players are allowed to use it througout the auction and play periods. The laws should make the easy rulings easy. This technical difficulty is easily solved by expanding "unless permitted by the regulating authority" to "unless part of the conditions of contest." Maybe there is some better wording. I don't see any problems with this expansion. To the contrary, it seems to work well. A player presumably cannot write the IMP tables on his shirt, but he presumably could use an IMP table that was posted prominently in the club so that anyone could read it. TIME BOUNDARIES It is not especially important, but I believe any director would allow artificial aids once play is ended, even if the play period is not over. (Actually, if they are going to write something down or make calculations, I would rather they not wait for the play period to end.) But maybe that is just me -- I would not mind the use of artificial aids to discover a revoke or mistaken explanation or error in scoring. You probably don't want people using artificial aids when the auction has started and the auction period has not. But, the simplest solution is to tell people not to take a call until the opponents have taken their hands from the board (or look ready to call or whatever seems appropriate). Anyway, you probably want to add a sentence to the laws saying that players cannot take their hands from the board until at least one opponent is seated. So this issue can be solved there. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 12 04:50:42 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:50:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] proposed change in L40C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >Any comments welcome [snip] >I am sure it is just me, but.... the vulnerability is marked on >the boards. Even though that is an artificial aid, players are >allowed to use it throughout the auction and play periods. >The laws should make the easy rulings easy. [snip] Easy Law 7A: When a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed. Easy Law 16A1(c): A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, +++arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws+++ and in regulations (but see B1 following) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111212/bec2dd5c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 12 07:14:42 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:14:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Sirius error (was Law 12C1(b) rewrite) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <008667163F5E429DA98E6A0E057F334E@erdos> Message-ID: Sirius Black: "[Hermione]'s got the measure of Crouch better than you have, Ron. If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals." David Grabiner: > Here is the post Steve is referring to. > > http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/ > 2010-February/004734.html > > 6) > S/EW > .............?J96 > .............?K75 > .............?AQJ8 > .............?Q76 > ?AQ74.......................?K53 > ?Q..........................?JT9643 > ?963........................?72 > ?J9432......................?A5 > .............?T82 > .............?A82 > .............?KT54 > .............?KT8 > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......---.......---.......Pass > Pass......1NT.......2?........X > Pass......Pass......2?........X > 3?........X.........3?........X > Pass......Pass......Pass > > 1NT shows 12-14; 2? is not alerted. > The TD does not allow the 3? bid. > South starts with ?8 for Q and A, ?3 > for Q and K; ?A: ?T; ? ruffed by East; > ?J for Ace in South [who] does not > cash the ?K but plays ?4, after which > declarer makes his contract. > > .............?J96 > .............?7 > .............?Q > .............?76 > ?AQ74.......................?K53 > ?---........................?T96 > ?---........................?--- > ?J43........................?5 > .............?T82 > .............?8 > .............?4 > .............?KT > > The TD decides that not playing ?K in > this position is a serious error. > > North has shown 12 points, which > places ?K in East. The only danger is > a discard of a club in East on a > possibly free spade in West. South > does not have an alternative but to > play ?K. Not playing itis a serious > error. > > The normal result is 3?X minus 3, the > expected result is 3?X ? 1: > compensation for the difference; but > no compensation for the difference > between 3?X - 1 and 3?X made. Richard Hills: "1NT shows 12-14" and "North has shown 12 points, which places ?K in East". But ... With zero tens and only one ace North may have elected to open a 12-14 1NT with 15 hcp, which places ?K in North. Kind regards, Richard Hills P.S. The fact that South is a passed hand but East is not may also have increased the likelihood of a wide- ranging 1NT opening bid by North. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111212/ee8e6d6d/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 12 08:00:22 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:00:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Sirius error (was Law 12C1(b) rewrite) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EE5A686.5090401@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/12/2011 7:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Sirius Black: > > "[Hermione]'s got the measure of Crouch > better than you have, Ron. If you want to > know what a man's like, take a good look > at how he treats his inferiors, not his > equals." > > David Grabiner: > > > Here is the post Steve is referring to. > > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/ > > 2010-February/004734.html > > > > 6) > > S/EW > > .............?J96 > > .............?K75 > > .............?AQJ8 > > .............?Q76 > > ?AQ74.......................?K53 > > ?Q..........................?JT9643 > > ?963........................?72 > > ?J9432......................?A5 > > .............?T82 > > .............?A82 > > .............?KT54 > > .............?KT8 > > > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > > ---.......---.......---.......Pass > > Pass......1NT.......2?........X > > Pass......Pass......2?........X > > 3?........X.........3?........X > > Pass......Pass......Pass > > > > 1NT shows 12-14; 2? is not alerted. > > The TD does not allow the 3? bid. > > South starts with ?8 for Q and A, ?3 > > for Q and K; ?A: ?T; ? ruffed by East; > > ?J for Ace in South [who] does not > > cash the ?K but plays ?4, after which > > declarer makes his contract. > > > > .............?J96 > > .............?7 > > .............?Q > > .............?76 > > ?AQ74.......................?K53 > > ?---........................?T96 > > ?---........................?--- > > ?J43........................?5 > > .............?T82 > > .............?8 > > .............?4 > > .............?KT > > > > The TD decides that not playing ?K in > > this position is a serious error. > AG : ... and this is a good example of why "serious" can't be the right adjective. This error is of the kind we all do several times in the course of a tournament, and it is considered too big to allow us a redress. This is not (I hope) what was intended. I know that many bridge players claim never to make an error, but that's not the case. After all, it took me a while to see why the CK was the good play. And Richard has a point that it isn't 100% either. It will never be absurd (or egregious, or whatever) to make a play which isn't dominant, in the game theory sense. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111212/465825bb/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Dec 12 17:37:46 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:37:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Anti-Doping Policy References: Message-ID: Al Levy informed me at the Seattle NABC that all USBF teams are tested for banned substances. Not in advance, as with many other sports, but on-site. That's good to know. Caffeine is not included as a banned substance. That's also good to know! Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From nistler at bridgehands.com Mon Dec 12 21:52:45 2011 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:52:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] proposed change in L40C3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B92A56B-3EFE-4656-BD2A-7499963F444E@bridgehands.com> Question - so when the declarer collapses their sixth winning trick to make a "book" is that an artificial memory aid? By the proposal, one could certainly deem it to aid declarer with their calculation , eh? Michael Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:27 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > Any comments welcome > > > L40C3: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, > calculation or technique." > > Suggested rewrite: "Unless *part of the conditions of contest*, a player > is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any *artificial* > aids to his memory, calculation or technique." > > ARTIFICIAL > The important addition here is the word "artificial". > > As far as I know, directors know what is allowed and what isn't allowed > and rule accordingly. The law could be that "players aren't entitled to > any aids they shouldn't be using" and directors would do fine. So the goal > of the law should be to write guidance that corresponds to the directors' > rulings. I don't know if that is possible to do completely, but the word > "artificial" seems to help a lot. > > Technically, the 2007 law bans the use of mnemonics, which are defined as > aids to memory. Or, I presume people are allowed to count on their > fingers, even though they are not allowed to write on their fingers. > > Other technical difficulties with the current are not hard to find. I > believe the current law prohibits the use of prayer *if* prayer is > effective. No one wants to rule on the effectiveness of prayer. And the > current law seems to prohibit caffeine. > > CONDITIONS OF CONTEST > I am sure it is just me, but.... the vulnerability is marked on the > boards. Even though that is an artificial aid, players are allowed to use > it througout the auction and play periods. The laws should make the easy > rulings easy. This technical difficulty is easily solved by expanding > "unless permitted by the regulating authority" to "unless part of the > conditions of contest." Maybe there is some better wording. > > I don't see any problems with this expansion. To the contrary, it seems to > work well. A player presumably cannot write the IMP tables on his shirt, > but he presumably could use an IMP table that was posted prominently in > the club so that anyone could read it. > > TIME BOUNDARIES > It is not especially important, but I believe any director would allow > artificial aids once play is ended, even if the play period is not over. > (Actually, if they are going to write something down or make calculations, > I would rather they not wait for the play period to end.) But maybe that > is just me -- I would not mind the use of artificial aids to discover a > revoke or mistaken explanation or error in scoring. > > You probably don't want people using artificial aids when the auction has > started and the auction period has not. But, the simplest solution is to > tell people not to take a call until the opponents have taken their hands > from the board (or look ready to call or whatever seems appropriate). > Anyway, you probably want to add a sentence to the laws saying that > players cannot take their hands from the board until at least one opponent > is seated. So this issue can be solved there. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Dec 12 22:42:03 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:42:03 -0000 Subject: [BLML] proposed change in L40C3 References: <1B92A56B-3EFE-4656-BD2A-7499963F444E@bridgehands.com> Message-ID: Who on earth does that ? (Outside of their own kitchen or the church hall of course). Illegal in itself. L Question - so when the declarer collapses their sixth winning trick to make a "book" is that an artificial memory aid? By the proposal, one could certainly deem it to aid declarer with their calculation , eh? Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111212/8ff0fb44/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 13 05:07:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:07:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] proposed change in L40C3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michael: >>Question - so when the declarer collapses their >>sixth winning trick to make a "book" is that an >>artificial memory aid? By the proposal, one could >>certainly deem it to aid declarer with their >>calculation, eh? Larry: >Who on earth does that? (Outside of their own >kitchen or the church hall of course). Illegal in itself. Richard: No, collapsing six tricks into one (providing that that declarer does so carefully) is indeed legal in itself. Law 65 ? Collection and Arrangement of Tricks: The cards constituting each completed trick are collected by a member of the side that won the trick and are then turned face down on the table. Each trick shall be identifiable as such, and all tricks taken by a side shall be arranged in sequence in front of declarer or of one defender, as the case may be, in such a manner that each side can determine the number of tricks it has won and the order in which they were taken. Richard: Of course, I gave a trick answer; the Law 65 that I quoted came from the Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge. But if a player spends their formative years playing rubber bridge, then later retires from rubber bridge to become a full-time duplicate bridgeur, that player may commit unintentional infractions when the Laws of Duplicate Bridge unexpectedly differ from the Laws of Contract Bridge. Neil Gaiman reminiscing about Terry Pratchett: The day he retired to become a full-time writer, he phoned me up. "It's only been half an hour since I retired, and already I hate those bastards," he said cheerfully. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111213/0738aa6f/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 13 18:06:58 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:06:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed change in L40C3 In-Reply-To: <1B92A56B-3EFE-4656-BD2A-7499963F444E@bridgehands.com> References: <1B92A56B-3EFE-4656-BD2A-7499963F444E@bridgehands.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:52:45 -0500, Nistler at BridgeHands.com wrote: > Question - so when the declarer collapses their sixth winning trick to > make a "book" is that an artificial memory aid? By the proposal, one > could certainly deem it to aid declarer with their calculation , eh? Yes to memory aid and artificial memory aid. If there was a club where this was common, I think it could be called part of the conditions of contest (or "permitted by the regulating authority"). If someone tried this in a place where no one else was doing it, I suspect the director would rule against the practice. I would. But if declarer said "that's book" (which is called "rehearsal", a well-known aid to memory), I don't think anyone would complain. > > Michael > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:27 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > >> Any comments welcome >> >> >> L40C3: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not >> entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, >> calculation or technique." >> >> Suggested rewrite: "Unless *part of the conditions of contest*, a player >> is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any *artificial* >> aids to his memory, calculation or technique." >> >> ARTIFICIAL >> The important addition here is the word "artificial". >> >> As far as I know, directors know what is allowed and what isn't allowed >> and rule accordingly. The law could be that "players aren't entitled to >> any aids they shouldn't be using" and directors would do fine. So the >> goal >> of the law should be to write guidance that corresponds to the >> directors' >> rulings. I don't know if that is possible to do completely, but the word >> "artificial" seems to help a lot. >> >> Technically, the 2007 law bans the use of mnemonics, which are defined >> as >> aids to memory. Or, I presume people are allowed to count on their >> fingers, even though they are not allowed to write on their fingers. >> >> Other technical difficulties with the current are not hard to find. I >> believe the current law prohibits the use of prayer *if* prayer is >> effective. No one wants to rule on the effectiveness of prayer. And the >> current law seems to prohibit caffeine. >> >> CONDITIONS OF CONTEST >> I am sure it is just me, but.... the vulnerability is marked on the >> boards. Even though that is an artificial aid, players are allowed to >> use >> it througout the auction and play periods. The laws should make the easy >> rulings easy. This technical difficulty is easily solved by expanding >> "unless permitted by the regulating authority" to "unless part of the >> conditions of contest." Maybe there is some better wording. >> >> I don't see any problems with this expansion. To the contrary, it seems >> to >> work well. A player presumably cannot write the IMP tables on his shirt, >> but he presumably could use an IMP table that was posted prominently in >> the club so that anyone could read it. >> >> TIME BOUNDARIES >> It is not especially important, but I believe any director would allow >> artificial aids once play is ended, even if the play period is not over. >> (Actually, if they are going to write something down or make >> calculations, >> I would rather they not wait for the play period to end.) But maybe that >> is just me -- I would not mind the use of artificial aids to discover a >> revoke or mistaken explanation or error in scoring. >> >> You probably don't want people using artificial aids when the auction >> has >> started and the auction period has not. But, the simplest solution is to >> tell people not to take a call until the opponents have taken their >> hands >> from the board (or look ready to call or whatever seems appropriate). >> Anyway, you probably want to add a sentence to the laws saying that >> players cannot take their hands from the board until at least one >> opponent >> is seated. So this issue can be solved there. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 14 03:38:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:38:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Mere lottery (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: John Dryden (1631 - 1700): If by people you understand the multitude, the hoi polloi, 'tis no matter what they think: they are sometimes in the right, sometimes in the wrong: their judgement is a mere lottery. Robert Frick judgement: [snip] >If there was a club where this [declarer collapses their sixth >winning trick to make a "book"] was common, I think it >could be called part of the conditions of contest (or >"permitted by the regulating authority"). Law 80A2: The Regulating Authority has the responsibilities and powers +++specified+++ in these laws. Law 80B2(f): The Tournament Organizer?s powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but +++not in conflict+++ with, these Laws. Law 65C: Each player arranges his own cards in an +++orderly overlapping row+++ in the sequence played, so as to permit review of the play after its completion, if necessary to determine the number of tricks won by each side or the order in which the cards were played. Robert Frick judgement: [snip] But if declarer said "that's book" (which is called "rehearsal", a well-known aid to memory), I don't think anyone would complain. Law 74C4: The following are examples of violations of procedure: commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111214/88530ad0/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 14 04:01:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:01:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mere lottery (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:38:46 -0500, wrote: > > John Dryden (1631 - 1700): > > If by people you understand the multitude, the hoi polloi, 'tis > no matter what they think: they are sometimes in the right, > sometimes in the wrong: their judgement is a mere lottery. > > Robert Frick judgement: > > [snip] >> If there was a club where this [declarer collapses their sixth >> winning trick to make a "book"] was common, I think it >> could be called part of the conditions of contest (or >> "permitted by the regulating authority"). > > Law 80A2: > > The Regulating Authority has the responsibilities and > powers +++specified+++ in these laws. > > Law 80B2(f): > > The Tournament Organizer?s powers and duties include: > to announce regulations supplementary to, but +++not in > conflict+++ with, these Laws. > > Law 65C: > > Each player arranges his own cards in an +++orderly > overlapping row+++ in the sequence played, so as to > permit review of the play after its completion, if necessary > to determine the number of tricks won by each side or the > order in which the cards were played. > > Robert Frick judgement: > > [snip] > But if declarer said "that's book" (which is called > "rehearsal", a well-known aid to memory), I don't think > anyone would complain. > > Law 74C4: > > The following are examples of violations of procedure: > commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to > call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number > of tricks still required for success. And has a declarer ever been punished for this in the history of bridge? I would be happy if I could rectify for declarer to make utterances that are interpreted as calls from dummy. ----------------------------- My goal is to change the laws to correspond to how directors are going to rule. There are a lot of advantages to this. You are making me confident that "conditions of contest" is a good change. From nistler at bridgehands.com Tue Dec 13 19:27:58 2011 From: nistler at bridgehands.com (Nistler@BridgeHands.com) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:27:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] proposed change in L40C3 In-Reply-To: References: <1B92A56B-3EFE-4656-BD2A-7499963F444E@bridgehands.com> Message-ID: <6839F55C-D253-42A2-8A6C-EB0DC11233C5@bridgehands.com> On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:06 PM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:52:45 -0500, Nistler at BridgeHands.com > wrote: > >> Question - so when the declarer collapses their sixth winning trick to >> make a "book" is that an artificial memory aid? By the proposal, one >> could certainly deem it to aid declarer with their calculation , eh? > > Yes to memory aid and artificial memory aid. If there was a club where > this was common, I think it could be called part of the conditions of > contest (or "permitted by the regulating authority"). If someone tried > this in a place where no one else was doing it, I suspect the director > would rule against the practice. I would. > > But if declarer said "that's book" (which is called "rehearsal", a > well-known aid to memory), I don't think anyone would complain. Okay, a more classic example we all see at the duplicate table is when the dummy consistently places RHOs opening led suit on dummy's right (in notrump contract) to both remind declarer of the leader's suit and ensure partner remembers its not a suit contract, But like collapsing a book, IMO practically speaking there isn't an appropriate form of redress against offender short of admonishment. Michael > >> >> Michael >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:27 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: >> >>> Any comments welcome >>> >>> >>> L40C3: "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not >>> entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, >>> calculation or technique." >>> >>> Suggested rewrite: "Unless *part of the conditions of contest*, a player >>> is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any *artificial* >>> aids to his memory, calculation or technique." >>> >>> ARTIFICIAL >>> The important addition here is the word "artificial". >>> >>> As far as I know, directors know what is allowed and what isn't allowed >>> and rule accordingly. The law could be that "players aren't entitled to >>> any aids they shouldn't be using" and directors would do fine. So the >>> goal >>> of the law should be to write guidance that corresponds to the >>> directors' >>> rulings. I don't know if that is possible to do completely, but the word >>> "artificial" seems to help a lot. >>> >>> Technically, the 2007 law bans the use of mnemonics, which are defined >>> as >>> aids to memory. Or, I presume people are allowed to count on their >>> fingers, even though they are not allowed to write on their fingers. >>> >>> Other technical difficulties with the current are not hard to find. I >>> believe the current law prohibits the use of prayer *if* prayer is >>> effective. No one wants to rule on the effectiveness of prayer. And the >>> current law seems to prohibit caffeine. >>> >>> CONDITIONS OF CONTEST >>> I am sure it is just me, but.... the vulnerability is marked on the >>> boards. Even though that is an artificial aid, players are allowed to >>> use >>> it througout the auction and play periods. The laws should make the easy >>> rulings easy. This technical difficulty is easily solved by expanding >>> "unless permitted by the regulating authority" to "unless part of the >>> conditions of contest." Maybe there is some better wording. >>> >>> I don't see any problems with this expansion. To the contrary, it seems >>> to >>> work well. A player presumably cannot write the IMP tables on his shirt, >>> but he presumably could use an IMP table that was posted prominently in >>> the club so that anyone could read it. >>> >>> TIME BOUNDARIES >>> It is not especially important, but I believe any director would allow >>> artificial aids once play is ended, even if the play period is not over. >>> (Actually, if they are going to write something down or make >>> calculations, >>> I would rather they not wait for the play period to end.) But maybe that >>> is just me -- I would not mind the use of artificial aids to discover a >>> revoke or mistaken explanation or error in scoring. >>> >>> You probably don't want people using artificial aids when the auction >>> has >>> started and the auction period has not. But, the simplest solution is to >>> tell people not to take a call until the opponents have taken their >>> hands >>> from the board (or look ready to call or whatever seems appropriate). >>> Anyway, you probably want to add a sentence to the laws saying that >>> players cannot take their hands from the board until at least one >>> opponent >>> is seated. So this issue can be solved there. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > -- > http://somepsychology.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 14 22:24:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:24:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Appeals Committee executive summary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The WBF Code of Practice is excellent, comprehensive and looong. Attached is an executive summary which grass-roots Appeals Committees might find useful. Kind regards, Richard Hills Guidelines for Appeals Committees Powers An Appeals Committee may listen to an appeal against any decision by the Director whatsoever. An Appeals Committee exercises most of the powers of the Director. (But decisions should be referenced with Law numbers and it is highly important that the Director in charge confirm Law references.) However, if the appeal concerns an interpretation of Law or regulation by the Director, or an exercising of the Director?s Law 91 disciplinary powers, the Appeals Committee may not unilaterally overrule the Director. But the Appeals Committee is permitted to attempt to persuade the Director in charge to change such a ruling. If an Appeals Committee deems that the appellants? case is without merit, the Appeals Committee may fine the meritless appellants matchpoints or imps or victory points, as appropriate (and as perhaps prescribed by local regulation). ?Caesar?s wife must be above suspicion? A member or potential member of the Appeals Committee should decline to serve if that person has already discussed the subject of the appeal with interested parties, or is personally biased towards one side. Evidence presented to the Appeals Committee The Director who presents the facts and the ruling to the Appeals Committee should be the Director who went to the table. Evidence should be interrupted as little as possible and committee members should carefully avoid direct exchanges of opinion with other persons in attendance. It is essential that committee members and those appearing before them behave in a wholly courteous manner. Inclination of the Appeals Committee The expectation is that the Appeals Committee will presume initially that the Director?s ruling is correct. The ruling is overturned only on the basis of evidence presented. For this reason the Director must inform the Appeals Committee if a ruling in favour of the non?offending side reflects a margin of doubt that continues to exist after the appropriate consultation procedure. The Director?s ruling remains unaltered when there is not an agreement to change it supported by a majority vote of the Appeals Committee, the Chair of the Appeals Committee having an (additional) casting vote in the event of a tie. Ethics A contestant may be penalised only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the Laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the Laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. Score adjustment The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C1) is appropriate when a violation of Law causes damage to an innocent side (although the extent of redress to this side may be affected, see below, if it has contributed to its own damage by wild or gambling action subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred (see Law 12B1). If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self?inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. Example: A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor?s score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. See Law 12C1(b). Law 12C1(c) states: In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results. The purpose of this Law is to enable the Director and/or the Appeals Committee to form a view as to what is an equitable outcome in the score, and to implement that outcome. It makes the Appeals Committee the final arbiter of equity. Procedural penalties A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the Laws or of a regulation made under the Laws. If the Appeals Committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what Law or regulation has been violated. In particular a player?s misused (or forgotten or misbid) convention is not subject to an automatic procedural penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated (repeated misuse creates an undisclosed implicit partnership understanding, which is an infraction of Law 40C1). Score adjustment is the way to redress damage. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111214/37b4a2c0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 14 23:11:23 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:11:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Michael: Okay, a more classic example we all see at the duplicate table is when the dummy consistently places RHO's opening led suit on dummy's right (in notrump contract) to both remind declarer of the leader's suit and ensure partner remembers its not a suit contract. But like collapsing a book, IMO practically speaking there isn't an appropriate form of redress against offender short of admonishment. Richard: Yes and No. Collapsing a book is definitely a Law 65C infraction. But preferentially allocating suits is equally definitely a Law 41D dummy right. Introduction: ?does? (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) Law 41D - Dummy's Hand: After the opening lead is faced, dummy [does spread] his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111214/f725a509/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 15 15:00:22 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:00:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:11:23 -0500, wrote: > > Michael: > > Okay, a more classic example we all see at the duplicate > table is when the dummy consistently places RHO's > opening led suit on dummy's right (in notrump contract) to > both remind declarer of the leader's suit and ensure partner > remembers its not a suit contract. But like collapsing a book, > IMO practically speaking there isn't an appropriate form of > redress against offender short of admonishment. > > Richard: > > Yes and No. > > Collapsing a book is definitely a Law 65C infraction. But > preferentially allocating suits is equally definitely a Law 41D > dummy right. Definitely? It doesn't seem fair if the opponents aren't aware of this. I think people rule against this here. > > Introduction: > > ?does? (establishes correct procedure without suggesting > that violation be penalized) > > Law 41D - Dummy's Hand: > > After the opening lead is faced, dummy [does spread] his > hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 15 15:03:50 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:03:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] correction to L41D In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Add: "clearly visible". This makes is very clear that hiding a card is an infraction. From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 15 15:40:46 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:40:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00cb01ccbb37$885d6800$99183800$@nl> Interesting. I had (and have) no idea about the lawfulness, but as dummy in a NT contract I have always put a never bid suit at the right. I do this specifically to reduce the risk of confusion. Never have I imagined that someone could construct this to be a violation of procedure. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: woensdag 14 december 2011 23:11 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Michael: Okay, a more classic example we all see at the duplicate table is when the dummy consistently places RHO's opening led suit on dummy's right (in notrump contract) to both remind declarer of the leader's suit and ensure partner remembers its not a suit contract. But like collapsing a book, IMO practically speaking there isn't an appropriate form of redress against offender short of admonishment. Richard: Yes and No. Collapsing a book is definitely a Law 65C infraction. But preferentially allocating suits is equally definitely a Law 41D dummy right. Introduction: ?does? (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) Law 41D - Dummy's Hand: After the opening lead is faced, dummy [does spread] his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111215/e17ef837/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 15 16:15:50 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:15:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EEA0F26.2070601@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/12/2011 15:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:11:23 -0500, wrote: > >> Michael: >> >> Okay, a more classic example we all see at the duplicate >> table is when the dummy consistently places RHO's >> opening led suit on dummy's right (in notrump contract) to >> both remind declarer of the leader's suit and ensure partner >> remembers its not a suit contract. But like collapsing a book, >> IMO practically speaking there isn't an appropriate form of >> redress against offender short of admonishment. >> >> Richard: >> >> Yes and No. >> >> Collapsing a book is definitely a Law 65C infraction. But >> preferentially allocating suits is equally definitely a Law 41D >> dummy right. > Definitely? It doesn't seem fair if the opponents aren't aware of this. I > think people rule against this here. AG : it is fair to place dummy's short suit on the right side of dummy in order to remember declarer that it isn't a suit contract, because opponents are (or should be) aware of that very fact. It is usual to place the led suit last, in order to ensure that declarer doesn't play too quickly (certainly not disallowed), and most of us use a left-to-right motion ; while intending to remember declarer of the lead isn't the intention, very pure intentions might have this effect. A bit in the same way as keeping a count of the tricks (which should be done, and which dummy may do if declarer doesn't) reminds declarer of whether he made the first trick, which in turn may help him remember the suit that was led. Ah yes, one more thing : I know some declarers who would themselves rearrange dummy's suits in order to have the suit led to their left. Do you intend to disallow them this ? All in all, much ado about little IMOBO. Best regards Alain > >> Introduction: >> >> ?does? (establishes correct procedure without suggesting >> that violation be penalized) >> >> Law 41D - Dummy's Hand: >> >> After the opening lead is faced, dummy [does spread] his >> hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >> email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >> privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. >> See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 15 17:15:48 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:15:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00cb01ccbb37$885d6800$99183800$@nl> References: <00cb01ccbb37$885d6800$99183800$@nl> Message-ID: <4EEA1D34.3040409@comcast.net> On 12/15/11 9:40 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > > Interesting. I had (and have) no idea about the lawfulness, but as > dummy in a NT contract I have always put a never bid suit at the > right. I do this specifically to reduce the risk of confusion. > > Never have I imagined that someone could construct this to be a > violation of procedure. > > Hans > > Hmmmm....It seems that Richard wants dummy to to lay down his cards in some way that deliberately confuses declarer. Or perhaps he has some randomizing procedure in mind that he might share with us? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111215/b566af53/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 15 17:20:32 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:20:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EEA1D34.3040409@comcast.net> References: <00cb01ccbb37$885d6800$99183800$@nl> <4EEA1D34.3040409@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EEA1E50.6050602@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/12/2011 17:15, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 12/15/11 9:40 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: >> >> Interesting. I had (and have) no idea about the lawfulness, but as >> dummy in a NT contract I have always put a never bid suit at the >> right. I do this specifically to reduce the risk of confusion. >> >> Never have I imagined that someone could construct this to be a >> violation of procedure. >> >> Hans >> >> > > Hmmmm....It seems that Richard wants dummy to to lay down his cards in > some way that deliberately confuses declarer. Or perhaps he has some > randomizing procedure in mind that he might share with us? Remember that there are indications about what constitutes proper placement of the cards (alternating colors, cards in order etc.). May we not suppose that /exceptio regulam probat/ ? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111215/809a7985/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 15 17:22:49 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:22:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today. Player claims she just pulled the wrong card out of bidding box. LHO had passed. It was a Blackwood responses. So, for my log, 2 of the first 3 claims of mispull have been Blackwood responses. Bob From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Dec 15 17:24:58 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:24:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4EEA0F26.2070601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <902FFD7377304A1CBEEC0435CA8CAA77@changeme1> Any declarer who can't rememver what was led v. a NT contract can do whatever they like with dummy as far as I'm concerned. L > Ah yes, one more thing : I know some declarers who would themselves > rearrange dummy's suits in order to have the suit led to their left. Do > you intend to disallow them this ? From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 15 18:47:10 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:47:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> [Robert Frick] Today. Player claims she just pulled the wrong card out of bidding box. LHO had passed. It was a Blackwood responses. So, for my log, 2 of the first 3 claims of mispull have been Blackwood responses. [Nige1] I will keep a log, too. Scottish directors are the most professional that I've encountered but even they have problems when coping with the more lunatic laws. eg National Congress Swiss Match-pointed pairs, last week-end. LHO opened 2D, partner passed, and RHO placed pass card on table. I enquired about meaning of 2D bid (18-19 flat). RHO claimed mispull. LHO's 2D (a Burnsian fit) would score poorly but director again allowed RHO change pass to a bid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 15 21:09:13 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:09:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:47:10 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > Today. Player claims she just pulled the wrong card out of bidding box. > LHO > had passed. It was a Blackwood responses. So, for my log, 2 of the first > 3 > claims of mispull have been Blackwood > responses. > [Nige1] > I will keep a log, too. Scottish directors are the most professional that > I've encountered but even they have problems when coping with the more > lunatic laws. eg National Congress Swiss Match-pointed pairs, last > week-end. > LHO opened 2D, partner passed, and RHO placed pass card on table. I > enquired about meaning of 2D bid (18-19 flat). RHO claimed mispull. > LHO's > 2D (a Burnsian fit) would score poorly but director again allowed RHO > change > pass to a bid. Hi Nigel. Great example. Here is what Ton wrote in his commentary: It is not easy to determine whether a call is unintended or not. The TD should decide it is unintended only if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split second, wanted to make that call. An example of a call that certainly is a big mistake but nevertheless was intended is the following: North opens 1?, Pass by East and South bids 4?, a splinter showing slam interest in hearts. West passes and North thinks for a while, eventually deciding that he is not going to encourage partner to bid a slam. But he forgets that they are not yet even in game and passes; he discovers his mistake immediately and calls the TD. North will tell the TD that he never intended to Pass, but the TD should not accept this statement. For a split second North thought that Pass was closing the auction in 4?. He never intended to play in 4?, that is a for sure, but it is also irrelevant. Another argument to support this decision is that the Pass did carry information; the player told his partner that he was not interested in slam. To use Ton's last criterion, we would expect that the player who passed 2D had a minimum and made whatever bid gets them to 2NT. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 15 22:44:24 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:44:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >It doesn't seem fair if the opponents aren't aware of this. The Princess Bride (1987 movie): "Who ever said life is fair? Where is that written? Life isn't always fair." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111215/905d002c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 16 02:29:52 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:29:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EEA0F26.2070601@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EEA0F26.2070601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:15:50 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 15/12/2011 15:00, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:11:23 -0500, wrote: >> >>> Michael: >>> >>> Okay, a more classic example we all see at the duplicate >>> table is when the dummy consistently places RHO's >>> opening led suit on dummy's right (in notrump contract) to >>> both remind declarer of the leader's suit and ensure partner >>> remembers its not a suit contract. But like collapsing a book, >>> IMO practically speaking there isn't an appropriate form of >>> redress against offender short of admonishment. >>> >>> Richard: >>> >>> Yes and No. >>> >>> Collapsing a book is definitely a Law 65C infraction. But >>> preferentially allocating suits is equally definitely a Law 41D >>> dummy right. >> Definitely? It doesn't seem fair if the opponents aren't aware of this. >> I >> think people rule against this here. > > AG : it is fair to place dummy's short suit on the right side of dummy > in order to remember declarer that it isn't a suit contract, because > opponents are (or should be) aware of that very fact. > It is usual to place the led suit last, in order to ensure that declarer > doesn't play too quickly (certainly not disallowed), and most of us use > a left-to-right motion ; while intending to remember declarer of the > lead isn't the intention, very pure intentions might have this effect. > > A bit in the same way as keeping a count of the tricks (which should be > done, and which dummy may do if declarer doesn't) reminds declarer of > whether he made the first trick, which in turn may help him remember the > suit that was led. In thinking about this, there seems to be something wrong with players agreeing in advance that the order of the suits has a particular meaning. Imagine, worst case scenario, a pro playing with a very bad client. The pro gets to hear the bidding and see the opening lead and might be able to communicate useful information to a novice, such as which suit would be best to attack or where a queen is likely to be. Or the pro could just put down the suits to remind declarer who is likely to have most of the points. Or maybe dummy can communicate by the spacing between cards. Hmm, this might be particularly important if the dummy happened to see a card in the opponent's hand. And that was the problem here -- the players agreed in advance that the opening lead suit would be placed to dummy's right. Less wrong, but still a problem, is if it becomes an implicit agreement. I have never forgotten the suit of the opening lead, but some players must. Can they ask, during play, if the order of suits in the dummy signals which suit was led first? Putting down a short suit on dummy's right, at no trump, so that no one gets confused about trumps, now seems like no problem at all. I used to do it to help my partner. But is helps the opponents just as much. (With the best strategy apparently being to first decide who is more likely to get confused, declarer or defenders.) > > Ah yes, one more thing : I know some declarers who would themselves > rearrange dummy's suits in order to have the suit led to their left. Do > you intend to disallow them this ? In a heartbeat. Artificial memory aid. Rearranging the spacing of cards, as an aid to remembering what has been played, would be just as bad. > > > All in all, much ado about little IMOBO. No, that created a problem here. I wasn't involved, but I think the issue reached the unit level. Certainly there were complaints and hard feelings. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 16 05:29:12 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:29:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Burn Burns [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Burns: O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! "Logicians" as seen by David Burn, 25th September 2007: FNJ means "fit non-jump". The notion is that a player who has originally passed will not introduce a new suit without support for partner's overcall. This is described by some BLML subscribers as a matter of "general bridge logic". It is of course no such thing. For example, if one's agreements regarding second-seat pre- empts are that they require two of the top three honours, then a sequence such as pass - pass - 1C - 2H - double - 2S could as a matter of "general bridge logic" be based on such as SQJ10xxxx and an ace. Of course, such "logic" is beyond those who seek to impose their own judgement of what is "general bridge knowledge" on members of appeals committees with whose rulings they disagree. I cannot help that, but it does make me rather tired. "Fielders" as seen by David Burn, 22nd September 2007: My fault for having been away for so long. It is of course parliamentary language to refer to a player who doesn't support spades with four of them as a "fielder" rather than a cheat, and naturally one would not dream of actually suggesting that a player who doesn't support spades with four of them has done anything other than made the correct technical bid, or perpetrated a tactical masterpiece, or deserved anything other than immediate promotion to the rank of Premier Grand Master and bar. But those who were kind enough to welcome me back to this forum in the hope that I would continue to excoriate the ungodly will know that when I use the word "cheating" I mean "doing something that a cheat would have done". But well it was said by the bard: Nothing is more ungentlemanly than Exaggeration, causing needless pain. It's worse than spitting, and it stamps a man, Quite properly, with other men's disdain. Weigh human actions carefully. Explain The worst of them with charity. Mayhap There were two sides to that affair of Paine, And Judas was a tolerable chap. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111216/ef7009c2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 16 06:20:54 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:20:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >It doesn't seem fair if the opponents aren't aware of this. Jean Anouilh, from his award winning play "Becket": "Effective action is always unjust." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111216/bffa7c3a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 16 06:44:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:44:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >It doesn't seem fair if the opponents aren't aware of this. John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2006: Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of Law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the Law is frequently broken. [snip] must go back to the Law even if people think that the Law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the Law is in force here and today. regards John -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111216/26bd4076/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 16 08:13:15 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:13:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <902FFD7377304A1CBEEC0435CA8CAA77@changeme1> References: <4EEA0F26.2070601@ulb.ac.be> <902FFD7377304A1CBEEC0435CA8CAA77@changeme1> Message-ID: <4EEAEF8B.5070202@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/12/2011 17:24, Larry a ?crit : > Any declarer who can't rememver what was led v. a NT contract can do > whatever they like with dummy as far as I'm concerned. Big marathon tournament in Leuven. Declarer plays from her hand, and says "ruff with small". Me : "it is not possible ; the contrat happens to be 2NT". Opener's long suit had been placed to the right of dummy. Declarer was a top player. The TD (who's well-known on blml) took a bit of time to find the relevant part of TFLB. Best regards Alain > > L > >> Ah yes, one more thing : I know some declarers who would themselves >> rearrange dummy's suits in order to have the suit led to their left. Do >> you intend to disallow them this ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Dec 16 09:34:15 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:34:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> Message-ID: Wasn't the TDs girlfriend was it? L > [Nige1] > I will keep a log, too. Scottish directors are the most professional that > I've encountered but even they have problems when coping with the more > lunatic laws. eg National Congress Swiss Match-pointed pairs, last > week-end. > LHO opened 2D, partner passed, and RHO placed pass card on table. I > enquired about meaning of 2D bid (18-19 flat). RHO claimed mispull. LHO's > 2D (a Burnsian fit) would score poorly but director again allowed RHO > change > pass to a bid. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 16 10:01:50 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:01:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> Message-ID: <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/12/2011 21:09, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:47:10 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Robert Frick] >> Today. Player claims she just pulled the wrong card out of bidding box. >> LHO >> had passed. It was a Blackwood responses. So, for my log, 2 of the first >> 3 >> claims of mispull have been Blackwood >> responses. >> [Nige1] >> I will keep a log, too. Scottish directors are the most professional that >> I've encountered but even they have problems when coping with the more >> lunatic laws. eg National Congress Swiss Match-pointed pairs, last >> week-end. >> LHO opened 2D, partner passed, and RHO placed pass card on table. I >> enquired about meaning of 2D bid (18-19 flat). RHO claimed mispull. >> LHO's >> 2D (a Burnsian fit) would score poorly but director again allowed RHO >> change >> pass to a bid. > Hi Nigel. Great example. Here is what Ton wrote in his commentary: > > It is not easy to determine whether a call is unintended or not. The TD > should decide it is unintended > only if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split > second, wanted to make that call. An > example of a call that certainly is a big mistake but nevertheless was > intended is the following: > North opens 1?, Pass by East and South bids 4?, a splinter showing slam > interest in hearts. West > passes and North thinks for a while, eventually deciding that he is not > going to encourage partner to bid > a slam. But he forgets that they are not yet even in game and passes; he > discovers his mistake > immediately and calls the TD. > North will tell the TD that he never intended to Pass, but the TD should > not accept this statement. > For a split second North thought that Pass was closing the auction in 4?. > He never intended to play in > 4?, that is a for sure, but it is also irrelevant. Another argument to > support this decision is that the Pass > did carry information; the player told his partner that he was not > interested in slam. > > > To use Ton's last criterion, we would expect that the player who passed 2D > had a minimum and made whatever bid gets them to 2NT. AG : if that was the player's hand, we shouldn't allow the mispull statement ; however, there might be other explanations ; the intent of the player might haver been : - to pull an alert card (rather frequent) ; - to pull a stop card, e.g. if his hand is compatible with a jump to 3M / 4M / SA Texas One might have a hard time distinguishing between the intent to transfer to 2NT and bid 3Nt and the intent t jump to 3NT, but that's always te time with mind-reading rules ; as usual we shouldn't decide "on the balance of probability" without knowing the hand ; and surely not decide what it was. Best regards Alain > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Dec 16 14:51:59 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:51:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> On 12/16/11 4:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 15/12/2011 21:09, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:47:10 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >>> [Robert Frick] >>> Today. Player claims she just pulled the wrong card out of bidding box. >>> LHO >>> had passed. It was a Blackwood responses. So, for my log, 2 of the first >>> 3 >>> claims of mispull have been Blackwood >>> responses. >>> [Nige1] >>> I will keep a log, too. Scottish directors are the most professional that >>> I've encountered but even they have problems when coping with the more >>> lunatic laws. eg National Congress Swiss Match-pointed pairs, last >>> week-end. >>> LHO opened 2D, partner passed, and RHO placed pass card on table. I >>> enquired about meaning of 2D bid (18-19 flat). RHO claimed mispull. >>> LHO's >>> 2D (a Burnsian fit) would score poorly but director again allowed RHO >>> change >>> pass to a bid. >> Hi Nigel. Great example. Here is what Ton wrote in his commentary: >> >> It is not easy to determine whether a call is unintended or not. The TD >> should decide it is unintended >> only if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split >> second, wanted to make that call. An >> example of a call that certainly is a big mistake but nevertheless was >> intended is the following: >> North opens 1?, Pass by East and South bids 4?, a splinter showing slam >> interest in hearts. West >> passes and North thinks for a while, eventually deciding that he is not >> going to encourage partner to bid >> a slam. But he forgets that they are not yet even in game and passes; he >> discovers his mistake >> immediately and calls the TD. >> North will tell the TD that he never intended to Pass, but the TD should >> not accept this statement. >> For a split second North thought that Pass was closing the auction in 4?. >> He never intended to play in >> 4?, that is a for sure, but it is also irrelevant. Another argument to >> support this decision is that the Pass >> did carry information; the player told his partner that he was not >> interested in slam. >> >> >> To use Ton's last criterion, we would expect that the player who passed 2D >> had a minimum and made whatever bid gets them to 2NT. > AG : if that was the player's hand, we shouldn't allow the mispull > statement ; however, there might be other explanations ; the intent of > the player might haver been : > > - to pull an alert card (rather frequent) ; > - to pull a stop card, e.g. if his hand is compatible with a jump to 3M > / 4M / SA Texas > > One might have a hard time distinguishing between the intent to transfer > to 2NT and bid 3Nt and the intent t jump to 3NT, but that's always te > time with mind-reading rules ; as usual we shouldn't decide "on the > balance of probability" without knowing the hand ; and surely not decide > what it was. Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run just as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, after all, what we do with revokes, which are of the same ilk. Should not "Look before you leap" be our motto? If you are too lazy to look, tough luck! I would think the training period here would be quite short. Nigel, where are you now that we need you? --bp From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 16 16:04:21 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:04:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EEB5DF5.9070600@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/12/2011 14:51, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 12/16/11 4:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 15/12/2011 21:09, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:47:10 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>> >>>> [Robert Frick] >>>> Today. Player claims she just pulled the wrong card out of bidding box. >>>> LHO >>>> had passed. It was a Blackwood responses. So, for my log, 2 of the first >>>> 3 >>>> claims of mispull have been Blackwood >>>> responses. >>>> [Nige1] >>>> I will keep a log, too. Scottish directors are the most professional that >>>> I've encountered but even they have problems when coping with the more >>>> lunatic laws. eg National Congress Swiss Match-pointed pairs, last >>>> week-end. >>>> LHO opened 2D, partner passed, and RHO placed pass card on table. I >>>> enquired about meaning of 2D bid (18-19 flat). RHO claimed mispull. >>>> LHO's >>>> 2D (a Burnsian fit) would score poorly but director again allowed RHO >>>> change >>>> pass to a bid. >>> Hi Nigel. Great example. Here is what Ton wrote in his commentary: >>> >>> It is not easy to determine whether a call is unintended or not. The TD >>> should decide it is unintended >>> only if he is convinced that the player never, not even for a split >>> second, wanted to make that call. An >>> example of a call that certainly is a big mistake but nevertheless was >>> intended is the following: >>> North opens 1?, Pass by East and South bids 4?, a splinter showing slam >>> interest in hearts. West >>> passes and North thinks for a while, eventually deciding that he is not >>> going to encourage partner to bid >>> a slam. But he forgets that they are not yet even in game and passes; he >>> discovers his mistake >>> immediately and calls the TD. >>> North will tell the TD that he never intended to Pass, but the TD should >>> not accept this statement. >>> For a split second North thought that Pass was closing the auction in 4?. >>> He never intended to play in >>> 4?, that is a for sure, but it is also irrelevant. Another argument to >>> support this decision is that the Pass >>> did carry information; the player told his partner that he was not >>> interested in slam. >>> >>> >>> To use Ton's last criterion, we would expect that the player who passed 2D >>> had a minimum and made whatever bid gets them to 2NT. >> AG : if that was the player's hand, we shouldn't allow the mispull >> statement ; however, there might be other explanations ; the intent of >> the player might haver been : >> >> - to pull an alert card (rather frequent) ; >> - to pull a stop card, e.g. if his hand is compatible with a jump to 3M >> / 4M / SA Texas >> >> One might have a hard time distinguishing between the intent to transfer >> to 2NT and bid 3Nt and the intent t jump to 3NT, but that's always te >> time with mind-reading rules ; as usual we shouldn't decide "on the >> balance of probability" without knowing the hand ; and surely not decide >> what it was. > > Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run just > as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" AG : to every problem there is a solution, simple, elegant, understandable, and wrong. > That is, after all, > what we do with revokes, which are of the same ilk. The difference being that a revoke is an infraction, while a mispull isn't (and wouldn't be even if the laws were changed). It's quite normal to be harsher against the former. > > Should not "Look before you leap" be our motto? If you are too lazy to > look, tough luck! AG : most of us pull their cards rather fluently and mispull at most once a year. They're protected by the current law in the uncommon case when it happens. If they weren't, they'd have to be very careful on every deal. Fluidity in the game is the reason for some laws and local rules (claims, non-systematic explanation, authorization to deal several deals at a time ...) IMNSHO, you suggested law will only eliminate some uncommon problems, and lengthen every deal. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Fri Dec 16 19:46:38 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:46:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills quoting John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2006] Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of Law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the Law is frequently broken. [snip] must go back to the Law even if people think that the Law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the Law is in force here and today. [Nige1] A pity that so few directors seem to agree with Richard and John. For example, has any BLMLer ever seen zero tolerance legislation enforced, even when the offence is in the director's presence? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Dec 17 02:22:44 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:22:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 41D (was ...Law 40C3) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EEAEF8B.5070202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol (slightly modified): Christmas time is here, by golly, Disapproval would be folly, Deck the halls with hunks of holly, Fill the cup and don't say when. Kill the turkeys, ducks and chickens, Mix the punch, drag out the Dickens, Even though the prospect sickens, Brother, here we go again. On Christmas Day you can't get sore, Your bridge partner you must adore, There's time to complain all the more The other three hundred and sixty four. Richard Hills: Victor Mollo's fictional but archetypal character the Hideous Hog complained that he must have committed many sins in a previous life to have the Rueful Rabbit as a bridge partner so very frequently. (On the other hand, H.H. noted that he frequently had Papa as an opponent, so H.H. must also have done some good things in that previous life.) One novel application of Law 41D by the Hog was when he was dummy and the Rabbit was declaring a trump contract. The Hog duly laid down trumps on his right, but spread with "an inviting bulge". R.R. consequently ruffed losers in dummy with middle trumps, not low trumps, thus had vital extra trump entries to R.R.'s hand to make the contract. Law 43A1(c) - Limitations on Dummy: Except as Law 42 allows: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111217/b0018dfb/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Dec 17 10:29:13 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:29:13 +0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: > Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run just > as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, after all, > what we do with revokes, Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? Gordon Rainsford From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 16:22:44 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:22:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: >> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run just >> as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, after all, >> what we do with revokes, > Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? > > Gordon Rainsford Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un-revoke? --bp From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 17 16:35:03 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:35:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> > Robert Park > On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: > >> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run > >> just as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, after > >> all, what we do with revokes, > > Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un-revoke? > --bp [Sven Pran] Have you never experienced a revoke not becoming established? From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 16:52:56 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:52:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> On 12/17/11 10:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Park >> On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: >>>> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run >>>> just as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, after >>>> all, what we do with revokes, >>> Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? >>> >>> Gordon Rainsford >> Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un-revoke? >> --bp > [Sven Pran] Have you never experienced a revoke not becoming established? OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an exposed card? --bp From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 17 17:13:10 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:13:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> > Robert Park > On 12/17/11 10:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Robert Park > >> On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>> On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: > >>>> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run > >>>> just as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, > >>>> after all, what we do with revokes, > >>> Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? > >>> > >>> Gordon Rainsford > >> Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un- > revoke? > >> --bp > > [Sven Pran] Have you never experienced a revoke not becoming > established? > > > OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an exposed card? [Sven Pran] Not a penalty, but a rectification (unless OS is the declaring side) - you had better watch what you write. And if the offender just had to live with his "mispull" then absolutely every revoke would become established. Is that what you want? The question: " Is that how you rule in cases of revokes?" was highly relevant. From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Dec 17 17:25:18 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:25:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EECC26E.3040508@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/12/2011 17:13, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Robert Park >> On 12/17/11 10:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> Robert Park >>>> On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>>> On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: >>>>>> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run >>>>>> just as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, >>>>>> after all, what we do with revokes, >>>>> Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? >>>>> >>>>> Gordon Rainsford >>>> Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un- >> revoke? >>>> --bp >>> [Sven Pran] Have you never experienced a revoke not becoming >> established? >> >> >> OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an exposed card? > [Sven Pran] Not a penalty, but a rectification (unless OS is the declaring > side) - you had better watch what you write. AG : I don't agree. The limitations on partner are penalties, not rectifications. From svenpran at online.no Sat Dec 17 17:42:02 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:42:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECC26E.3040508@ulb.ac.be> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECC26E.3040508@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000201ccbcda$cfa59710$6ef0c530$@online.no> Alain Gottcheiner: > >> OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an exposed card? > > [Sven Pran] Not a penalty, but a rectification (unless OS is the > > declaring > > side) - you had better watch what you write. > AG : I don't agree. The limitations on partner are penalties, not rectifications. [Sven Pran] Not after 2007! Don't confuse the adjective "penalty" as in "penalty card" with the noun "penalty". The latter is now only used on cases of procedural or disciplinary penalties. All other cases where the earlier laws used the noun "penalty" are now "rectifications". From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 18:06:54 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:06:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> On 12/17/11 11:13 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Park >> On 12/17/11 10:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>> Robert Park >>>> On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>>> On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: >>>>>> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run >>>>>> just as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, >>>>>> after all, what we do with revokes, >>>>> Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? >>>>> >>>>> Gordon Rainsford >>>> Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un- >> revoke? >>>> --bp >>> [Sven Pran] Have you never experienced a revoke not becoming >> established? >> >> >> OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an exposed card? > [Sven Pran] Not a penalty, but a rectification (unless OS is the declaring > side) - you had better watch what you write. > And if the offender just had to live with his "mispull" then absolutely > every revoke would become established. Is that what you want? > > The question: " Is that how you rule in cases of revokes?" was highly > relevant. I think you are twisting my point. Why should a mispull be a freebie, when a revoke (except in the end game) is not? Both, after all, result from a lack of attention. --bp From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Dec 17 18:52:06 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:52:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> Message-ID: <11B40F85-3CA2-4D2B-B81F-A533E3CA4F6C@btinternet.com> Declarer: "Director, I've just failed to follow suit." BP: "Sorry, you just have to live with it." Gordon Rainsford On 17 Dec 2011, at 15:22, Robert Park wrote: > On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: >>> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run just >>> as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, after all, >>> what we do with revokes, >> Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? >> >> Gordon Rainsford > > Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un-revoke? > --bp > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blackshoe at mac.com Sat Dec 17 19:19:22 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:19:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Robert Park wrote: > I think you are twisting my point. Why should a mispull be a freebie, > when a revoke (except in the end game) is not? > > Both, after all, result from a lack of attention. > --bp A mispull is not a freebie. There are specific prerequisites in the law to allowing a Law 25A change. If those prerequisites are not met, the change is not allowed, even if it truly was a mispull. From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Dec 17 20:16:32 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:16:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> Message-ID: <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> On 12/17/11 1:19 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> I think you are twisting my point. Why should a mispull be a freebie, >> when a revoke (except in the end game) is not? >> >> Both, after all, result from a lack of attention. >> --bp > A mispull is not a freebie. There are specific prerequisites in the law to allowing a Law 25A change. If those prerequisites are not met, the change is not allowed, even if it truly was a mispull. > It seems to me that bidding box actions don't always fit neatly into 25A, a law that traces it history to a time before bidding boxes came into being. What I am reacting to (in part) is that 3 times in the past 2 weeks, an opponent made an insufficient bid as an overcall. I immediately called a halt and asked for the director, at which point the opponent said that that was not the card he intended to lay on the table (a claim we do not dispute). In each case, the director allowed "mispull (twice after looking at the opponent's hand, though I'm not sure why that is relevant)," and the opponent was allowed to replace his bid. It's not clear to me that this meets the "without pause for thought" clause of 25A, yet it seems to be what standard director practice is today. In the case of a revoke, a "that was not the card I intended to play" statement carries no weight. So why should it carry weight with respect to bidding box use? --bp From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Dec 17 23:52:11 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:52:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> "Robert Park" writes: > What I am reacting to (in part) is that 3 times in the past 2 weeks, an > opponent made an insufficient bid as an overcall. I immediately called a > halt and asked for the director, at which point the opponent said that > that was not the card he intended to lay on the table (a claim we do not > dispute). In each case, the director allowed "mispull (twice after > looking at the opponent's hand, though I'm not sure why that is > relevant)," and the opponent was allowed to replace his bid. Looking at the opponent's hand (preferably away from the table) can help evaluate a claim of mispull. If a player bids 1D under a 1H opening with Kxx Ax QJTxxx Kx, he could reasonably have intended to make a 2D overcall and grabbed the wrong card. If he has Kxx Axxx QJTx Kx, he presumably intended to open 1D, as this hand is not a 2D overcall, and thus the TD might not accept a claimed mispull (and should allow offender's LHO to accept the insufficient bid). From bpark56 at comcast.net Sun Dec 18 02:44:57 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:44:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> Message-ID: <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> On 12/17/11 5:52 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Park" writes: > >> What I am reacting to (in part) is that 3 times in the past 2 weeks, an >> opponent made an insufficient bid as an overcall. I immediately called a >> halt and asked for the director, at which point the opponent said that >> that was not the card he intended to lay on the table (a claim we do not >> dispute). In each case, the director allowed "mispull (twice after >> looking at the opponent's hand, though I'm not sure why that is >> relevant)," and the opponent was allowed to replace his bid. > Looking at the opponent's hand (preferably away from the table) can help > evaluate a claim of mispull. If a player bids 1D under a 1H opening with Kxx Ax > QJTxxx Kx, he could reasonably have intended to make a 2D overcall and grabbed > the wrong card. Yes, but he could also have not seen the 1H card. So, would you always believe him when he says it was a mispull, especially if he did not attempt a correction until after someone else called attention the irregularity? What criteria would you use to guide your decision? > If he has Kxx Axxx QJTx Kx, he presumably intended to open 1D, > as this hand is not a 2D overcall, and thus the TD might not accept a claimed > mispull (and should allow offender's LHO to accept the insufficient bid). > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blackshoe at mac.com Sun Dec 18 02:51:26 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:51:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 17, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Robert Park wrote: > It's not clear to me that this meets the "without pause for thought" > clause of 25A, yet it seems to be what standard director practice is today. WBFLC Minute #6, Maastricht, 30August2000: The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. If the instant that your opponent discovered his mistake was the same instant that you "called a halt and asked for the director", then he is in time for a 25A change. > In the case of a revoke, a "that was not the card I intended to play" > statement carries no weight. So why should it carry weight with respect > to bidding box use? Different laws, different rulings. There is no equivalent to Law 25A in the case of a played card (except for one "designated" to be played). From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Dec 18 02:56:12 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:56:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> Message-ID: <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> "Robert Park" > On 12/17/11 5:52 PM, David Grabiner wrote: >> "Robert Park" writes: >> >>> What I am reacting to (in part) is that 3 times in the past 2 weeks, an >>> opponent made an insufficient bid as an overcall. I immediately called a >>> halt and asked for the director, at which point the opponent said that >>> that was not the card he intended to lay on the table (a claim we do not >>> dispute). In each case, the director allowed "mispull (twice after >>> looking at the opponent's hand, though I'm not sure why that is >>> relevant)," and the opponent was allowed to replace his bid. >> Looking at the opponent's hand (preferably away from the table) can help >> evaluate a claim of mispull. If a player bids 1D under a 1H opening with Kxx >> Ax >> QJTxxx Kx, he could reasonably have intended to make a 2D overcall and >> grabbed >> the wrong card. > > Yes, but he could also have not seen the 1H card. So, would you always > believe him when he says it was a mispull, especially if he did not > attempt a correction until after someone else called attention the > irregularity? What criteria would you use to guide your decision? > > >> If he has Kxx Axxx QJTx Kx, he presumably intended to open 1D, >> as this hand is not a 2D overcall, and thus the TD might not accept a claimed >> mispull (and should allow offender's LHO to accept the insufficient bid). If I look at the player's hand, I would believe a mispull if the mispull is plausible, as on the first example above. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 18 06:02:17 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:02:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:51:59 -0500, Robert Park wrote: > > > Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run just > as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, after all, > what we do with revokes, which are of the same ilk. > > Should not "Look before you leap" be our motto? If you are too lazy to > look, tough luck! > > I would think the training period here would be quite short. > > Nigel, where are you now that we need you? The fourth claim of mispull was a woman saying she meant to bid 1H instead of 1D. She had 5 hearts in her hand. I guess she could have counted them wrong. Bridge can be a really enjoyable game, with a lot of interesting problems to solve. But if the laws made her continue with her 1 Diamond bid, then things are just mixed up and not as interesting. She was happy she got to change, and to the extent that the opponents wanted to play bridge (versus win), they should be happy with the change too. So, yes to simpler, yes to fair, yes to easier to apply if mispulls couldn't be changed. But I think not as much enjoyment, so not as good. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Dec 18 09:21:18 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:21:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EEDA27E.6060409@btinternet.com> On 18/12/2011 01:51, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 17, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> It's not clear to me that this meets the "without pause for thought" >> clause of 25A, yet it seems to be what standard director practice is today. > WBFLC Minute #6, Maastricht, 30August2000: The Committee examined a statement that "When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. > > If the instant that your opponent discovered his mistake was the same instant that you "called a halt and asked for the director", then he is in time for a 25A change. And again from Veldhoven, from October 18th this year: 6. The committee confirmed once again that if a player?s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ?pause for thought? should be assessed from the moment when hefirst recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows: ?A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.? Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Dec 18 09:30:24 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:30:24 +0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> Message-ID: <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> On 18/12/2011 01:56, David Grabiner wrote: Yes, but he could also have not seen the 1H card. So, would you always believe him when he says it was a mispull, especially if he did not attempt a correction until after someone else called attention the irregularity? What criteria would you use to guide your decision? >>> If he has Kxx Axxx QJTx Kx, he presumably intended to open 1D, >>> as this hand is not a 2D overcall, and thus the TD might not accept a claimed >>> mispull (and should allow offender's LHO to accept the insufficient bid). > If I look at the player's hand, I would believe a mispull if the mispull is > plausible, as on the first example above. The problem comes when you don't believe the player, having looked at the hand. Do you think the hand is still playable, once you've effectively told everyone what's in the hand? Better in my opinion is to make sure the player understands the distinction between a change of mind and a mispull, and then allow the correction, standing ready to adjust/penalise at the end if it's clear that the player was trying it on. Gordon Rainsford From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Dec 18 10:31:06 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:31:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> Many players, (having witnessed others getting their call(s) back without penalty, (OOPs ******** rectification)). believe that they (always) can as well. They are not lying or cheating when they confirm that they 'mispulled', they simply don't understand the distinction between a deliberate (however silly) action and 2 cards being stuck together with beer. Your question(s) need to make this very clear. L > The problem comes when you don't believe the player, having looked at > the hand. Do you think the hand is still playable, once you've > effectively told everyone what's in the hand? Better in my opinion is to > make sure the player understands the distinction between a change of > mind and a mispull, and then allow the correction, standing ready to > adjust/penalise at the end if it's clear that the player was trying it on. > > > Gordon Rainsford From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Dec 18 16:02:59 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:02:59 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 57????? Message-ID: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> Queensland Bridge Association Club Directors Exam 2008 - Laws QUESTION ELEVEN NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST - - 1H 1S 2S(1) 3S 4H 4S Pass Pass 2S(1) shows 4+ hearts and invitational values At this stage of the auction North makes a face up opening lead of the ?2. What is your ruling? Law 24 tells us "LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED PRIOR TO PLAY PERIOD When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50), then: A. Low Card Not Prematurely Led If it is a single card below the rank of an honour and not prematurely led, there is no further rectification. B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Prematurely Led If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side).". We have in the back of our mind that we can go to Law 23. Then we proceed to Law 50. "LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 23 may apply)." While we can argue that North was not a defender at the time that he led prematurely, I find the words "(but not led, see Law 57)" ambiguous. Opinions Please bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111218/6d2e1c5f/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Sun Dec 18 16:29:08 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:29:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 57????? In-Reply-To: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> References: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4EEE06C4.2070007@comcast.net> On 12/18/11 10:02 AM, bill kemp wrote: > Queensland Bridge Association > Club Directors Exam 2008 - Laws > > QUESTION ELEVEN > > NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST > - - 1H 1S > 2S(1) 3S 4H 4S > Pass Pass > > 2S(1) shows 4+ hearts and invitational values > > At this stage of the auction North makes a face up opening lead of the ?2. > What is your ruling? > > Law 24 tells us > > "LAW 24 - CARD EXPOSED OR LED PRIOR TO PLAY PERIOD > When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a > player's own error one or more cards of that player's hand were in > position > for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that > every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period > ends. > Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending > side but unauthorized for the offending side. If the offender becomes > declarer or dummy the cards are picked up and returned to the hand. If the > offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card > (see Law > 50), then: > A. Low Card Not Prematurely Led > If it is a single card below the rank of an honour and not prematurely > led, > there is no further rectification. > B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Prematurely Led > If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led > offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 > when a pass damages the non-offending side).". > > We have in the back of our mind that we can go to Law 23. > > Then we proceed to Law 50. > > "LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD > A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a > penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise (see Law 49 and Law > 23 may apply)." > > While we can argue that North was not a defender at the time that he > led prematurely, I find the words "(but not led, see Law 57)" ambiguous. > > Opinions Please > > bill > Is there not also an issue that North has suggested to South that he stop bidding and not double? --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111218/4926188c/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Dec 18 16:48:03 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:48:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?b?TGF3IDU3Pz8/Pz8=?= In-Reply-To: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> References: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <1RcIy3-11hIPI0@fwd12.aul.t-online.de> > Von: bill kemp > "LAW 50 - DISPOSITION OF PENALTY CARD > A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a > defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates > otherwise (see Law 49 and Law 23 may apply)." > > While we can argue that North was not a defender at the time > that he led prematurely, I find the words "(but not led, > see Law 57)" ambiguous. > > Opinions Please I don't like (and understand) the wording either; maybe "if" instead of "not" would be better. IMO the lawmakers want the TD to read 57 first, when the prematurely exposed card is a card led by a defender. But - coming back to the exam question - Law 57 cannot apply here, as the conditions in Law 57 ("When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick [...]") are not present. From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 18 19:24:05 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:24:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 57????? In-Reply-To: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> References: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <002601ccbdb2$3a6f41e0$af4dc5a0$@online.no> bill kemp NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST - - 1H 1S 2S(1) 3S 4H 4S Pass Pass 2S(1) shows 4+ hearts and invitational values At this stage of the auction North makes a face up opening lead of the ?2. What is your ruling? [Sven Pran] You begin with Law 24: The card is exposed during the auction in an act of leading it so it must remain exposed until the end of the auction and South must pass when next it is his turn to call (Law 24B) If after play is completed the Director judges that this forced pass has damaged opponents he shall award an adjusted score (Law 23). The auction will then end with South's forced pass, the exposed card now becomes a major penalty card and South is to make the opening lead. Law 50 applies. Law 57 applies only on leads or plays out of turn during the play period when a defender plays a card before his partner has played a card that should have been played before the play out of turn. regards From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 18 20:55:53 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:55:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:51:26 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> It's not clear to me that this meets the "without pause for thought" >> clause of 25A, yet it seems to be what standard director practice is >> today. > > WBFLC Minute #6, Maastricht, 30August2000: The Committee examined a > statement that "When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an > inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the player's > discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over > the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee > finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating authorities to > incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament > regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no regulation to > cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. > > If the instant that your opponent discovered his mistake was the same > instant that you "called a halt and asked for the director", then he is > in time for a 25A change. The more I think about this phrase, the less I like it. Some people just blurt out "oh shit" when they make a mistake. But we try to teach them not to do that and instead to have a poker face. So the person notices their mispull. The first thing they should try to do is remember the law. That right there is pause for thought. If you know the law well, the second thing you should do is see if your partner has called. If you claim mispull and the ruling does not let you change, you have given your partner serious UI. Most people, if they see that LHO has called, will have to think about whether or not it is too late to change. If you think about whether there was a pause between noticing your mispull and remarking on it.....there was. And if you are smart, you should also think about whether the declarer will rule in your favor. So, except if someone impulsively blurts something out, which they are supposed to be trained not to do, there will be time for thought, and actual thought will occur in between noticing the mispull and remarking on it. If you have thought through all of these issues in advance, I estimate that you can do all of your thinking in about a second. But the same can be said for the thinking needed to decide to claim mispull after a mistaken bid. Bob From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Dec 18 21:06:26 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:06:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 57????? In-Reply-To: <4EEE06C4.2070007@comcast.net> References: <4EEE00A3.8010100@iinet.net.au> <4EEE06C4.2070007@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EEE47C2.1050202@nhcc.net> On 12/18/2011 10:29 AM, Robert Park wrote: > Is there not also an issue that North has suggested to South that he > stop bidding and not double? This would normally be handled by North's card being UI to South, but in the example case, South has to pass regardless. Any further issue is covered by L23. There's not an automatic adjustment, but if North "could have known" he wanted South to pass and EW are damaged, they get an adjusted score. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Dec 18 21:15:35 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:15:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EEE49E7.8060409@nhcc.net> On 12/18/2011 2:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > If you think about whether there was a pause between noticing your mispull > and remarking on it.....there was. What I'm wondering is why we let players correct mispulls with the bidding cards but not misplays by declarer. (There's an obvious reason not to allow correction of a misplay by a defender.) From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 18 22:45:02 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:45:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EEE49E7.8060409@nhcc.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <4EEE49E7.8060409@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <002e01ccbdce$4d8164e0$e8842ea0$@online.no> > Steve Willner > What I'm wondering is why we let players correct mispulls with the bidding > cards but not misplays by declarer. (There's an obvious reason not to allow > correction of a misplay by a defender.) [Sven Pran] Simplified: We let declarer correct a misplay if it was accidental but not if it was deliberate. From adam at tameware.com Mon Dec 19 00:57:35 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:57:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] An unusual UI question Message-ID: http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/kits-korner/1021-dodging-the-endplay A long discussion but well worth reading. The laws question comes near the end. For those who don't want to read through, here's my summary: Your partner hesitates. This tells you nothing relevant about the deal, since you already know where all the cards are. It tells declarer something, though. Is your knowledge that declarer can take advantage of partner's hesitation authorized to you? Why or why not? If this kind of situation has been discussed on BLML previously I'd love a reference! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111218/e6b39d6a/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Mon Dec 19 02:40:43 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:40:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <002e01ccbdce$4d8164e0$e8842ea0$@online.no> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <4EEE49E7.8060409@nhcc.net> <002e01ccbdce$4d8164e0$e8842ea0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Steve Willner >> What I'm wondering is why we let players correct mispulls with the bidding >> cards but not misplays by declarer. (There's an obvious reason not to > allow >> correction of a misplay by a defender.) > > [Sven Pran] Simplified: > We let declarer correct a misplay if it was accidental but not if it was > deliberate. I believe you're thinking of plays from dummy, which might have been the result of an inadvertent designation (Law 45C4{b}, Law 47C). A play from declarer's hand, if it meets the criteria of Law 45C1, cannot be changed, just as a play from a defender's hand that meets the criterion of Law 45C1 cannot be changed (in both cases, if the "play" does not meet the criteria, the card is not played). I would say that if there's an obvious reason not to allow a defender to change a "misplay", there's an equally obvious reason not to allow declarer to do so. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 19 03:52:01 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:52:01 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> Message-ID: <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> Is it "fair" to allow miss-pulls to be corrected, in certain circumstances? Some BLMLers argue "YES"? because they applaud the WBFLC definition of "equity" which amounts to "attempting to restore the status-quo". IMO, the miss-pull law illustrates some of the flaws in this weird concept of "Equity": - Few directors or players understand miss-pull rules . At club level, especially, some feel that such laws are complex, unnecessary, and add nothing of value to the game. Cutting out the mechanical-error rule would simplify the game and make the rules more comprehensible to players. - Bridge is a game of mistakes. A bidding-box miss-pull is a mistake. In other situations, if you make a careless mistake, you accept the consequences. The game can continue quite normally without any special rule. There is no particular reason why the perpetrator should be allowed to correct certain careless mistakes but not others. - Careless and thoughtless actions disrupt the game and lessen the enjoyment of other players. Hence, (correctly, in my view), many Bridge rules mildly deter such behaviour. The "mechanical error" law lessens such deterrence. Some players resent a law that deliberately sets out to award a careless player two bites of the cherry. - Players are prone to claim that their miss-pulls are mechanical errors. The conscientious director investigates as far as he can. But, ultimately, his ruling is a matter of judgement. Directors differ in their judgement, resulting in inconsistent rulings. Unfairness is inevitable when directors exercise judgement. The miss-pull law, however, is unnecessary. It introduces easily avoidable unfairness. - Few players admit to "slips of the mind". Few confess that they are uncertain. Such honest players are automatically ruled against. Rules that reward dishonesty and punish honesty are fine in games like Liar-dice or GTA. Arguably, however, they are inappropriate to Bridge. This thread may produce evidence of how such laws work in practice. One fear is that such rules impose pressure on professionals who are hired by sponsors as partners and team-mates. As an indication of the problem, can a director recall practical cases from his own experience where: - a professional player hired by a sponsor, readily admitted to a "slip of the mind", when questioned? - the director ruled that an error claimed by such a professional to be a "slip of the hand" was in fact a "slip of the mind"? From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 19 08:31:24 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:31:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?An_unusual_UI_question?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RcXgy-1fh5SC0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Von: Adam Wildavsky > Your partner hesitates. This tells you nothing relevant about > the deal, since you already know where all the cards are. It tells > declarer something, though. Is your knowledge that declarer can take > advantage of partner's hesitation authorized to you? Why or why > not? No. Law 16A: "1. A player may use information in the [...] or play if: (a) it derives from the legal [...] plays of the current board [...] _and is unaffected by unauthorized information_ from another source; or (b) [...] or (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or (d) [...] 2. [...] 3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from [...] haste or hesitation [...], he must carefully avoid taking _any_ advantage from that unauthorized information." Emphasis (_..._) by me. From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 19 08:38:58 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:38:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <4EEE49E7.8060409@nhcc.net> <002e01ccbdce$4d8164e0$e8842ea0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000d01ccbe21$452cbda0$cf8638e0$@online.no> [Ed Reppert] > On Dec 18, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > [Sven Pran] Simplified: > > We let declarer correct a misplay if it was accidental but not if it > > was deliberate. > > I believe you're thinking of plays from dummy, which might have been the > result of an inadvertent designation (Law 45C4{b}, Law 47C). A play from > declarer's hand, if it meets the criteria of Law 45C1, cannot be changed, just > as a play from a defender's hand that meets the criterion of Law 45C1 cannot > be changed (in both cases, if the "play" does not meet the criteria, the card is > not played). > > I would say that if there's an obvious reason not to allow a defender to > change a "misplay", there's an equally obvious reason not to allow declarer to > do so. [Sven Pran] No, I am also thinking of a card accidentally (for instance) dropped by declarer in a way resembling a play of the card. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 19 15:22:06 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <000201ccbcda$cfa59710$6ef0c530$@online.no> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECC26E.3040508@ulb.ac.be> <000201ccbcda$cfa59710$6ef0c530$@online.no> Message-ID: <5DD56FA1-0C70-44DD-97CC-75C88F6A03BC@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>>> OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an >>>> exposed card? >>> [Sven Pran] Not a penalty, but a rectification (unless OS is the >>> declaring >>> side) - you had better watch what you write. > >> AG : I don't agree. The limitations on partner are penalties, not >> rectifications. > > > [Sven Pran] Not after 2007! > > Don't confuse the adjective "penalty" as in "penalty card" with the > noun > "penalty". > > The latter is now only used on cases of procedural or disciplinary > penalties. > All other cases where the earlier laws used the noun "penalty" are now > "rectifications". Changing the terminology doesn't change the cases. T 2007 FLB now reserves "penalties" for what used to be called "disciplinary penalties". So now we have two kinds of "rectifications" (which we've been calling "adjustments"), those (like for revokes) that are applied "automatically" per some formula (which we've been calling "penalties"), and those (like for use of UI) that are determined by the adjudicators "in order to achieve equity" (which we've been calling "rectifications"). If we're going to discuss these matters intelligently, we need new terminology that distinguishes these two different kinds of "rectifications" without conflicing with TFLB's newly defined usage of our old terms. Anybody got any ideas? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 19 15:45:20 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:45:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: <3329F921-6002-48D1-9BB4-7D29E39E3947@starpower.net> On Dec 17, 2011, at 8:51 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 17, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> In the case of a revoke, a "that was not the card I intended to play" >> statement carries no weight. So why should it carry weight with >> respect >> to bidding box use? > > Different laws, different rulings. There is no equivalent to Law > 25A in the case of a played card (except for one "designated" to be > played). When you correct a revoke, the other players learn that the mispulled card is in your hand. When you correct an inadvertant call, they already knew that the mispulled card is in your bidding box. It would seem obvious that this difference would warrant different forms of rectification. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Dec 19 15:58:56 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:58:56 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net><000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECC26E.3040508@ulb.ac.be><000201ccbcda$cfa59710$6ef0c530$@online.no> <5DD56FA1-0C70-44DD-97CC-75C88F6A03BC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8F5D37C12DA24880A4CBAA824E2DF5B4@changeme1> 'Corporal' & 'Capital' rectifications would suit some... L If we're going to discuss these matters > intelligently, we need new terminology that distinguishes these two > different kinds of "rectifications" without conflicing with TFLB's > newly defined usage of our old terms. Anybody got any ideas? > > > Eric Landau From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 19 16:18:07 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:18:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:51:26 -0500, Ed Reppert > wrote: > >> On Dec 17, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> It's not clear to me that this meets the "without pause for thought" >>> clause of 25A, yet it seems to be what standard director practice is >>> today. >> >> WBFLC Minute #6, Maastricht, 30August2000: The Committee examined a >> statement that "When bidding boxes are in use the attempt to >> correct an >> inadvertent call (Law 25A) must follow instantaneously upon the >> player's >> discovery of his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over >> the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee >> finds this principle acceptable and urges regulating authorities to >> incorporate it (or an alternative statement) in their tournament >> regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is no >> regulation to >> cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. >> >> If the instant that your opponent discovered his mistake was the same >> instant that you "called a halt and asked for the director", then >> he is >> in time for a 25A change. > > The more I think about this phrase, the less I like it. Some people > just > blurt out "oh shit" when they make a mistake. But we try to teach > them not > to do that and instead to have a poker face. So the person notices > their > mispull. The first thing they should try to do is remember the law. > That > right there is pause for thought. > > If you know the law well, the second thing you should do is see if > your > partner has called. If you claim mispull and the ruling does not > let you > change, you have given your partner serious UI. Most people, if > they see > that LHO has called, will have to think about whether or not it is too > late to change. > > If you think about whether there was a pause between noticing your > mispull > and remarking on it.....there was. > > And if you are smart, you should also think about whether the declarer > will rule in your favor. > > So, except if someone impulsively blurts something out, which they are > supposed to be trained not to do, there will be time for thought, and > actual thought will occur in between noticing the mispull and > remarking on > it. > > If you have thought through all of these issues in advance, I estimate > that you can do all of your thinking in about a second. But the > same can > be said for the thinking needed to decide to claim mispull after a > mistaken bid. On the instant you realize that you have mispulled an indadvertant call, without pause for thought, you need only say something to stop the action. Then, if you wish to think about the sorts of considerations Bob raises, you are free to do so. Should you wish to make a L25A correction, your immediate reaction, without pause for thought, will be accepted by the TD as evidence that your mispull was unintended. Should you decide to let your mispull stand, a simple, "Never mind; let's continue," with, of course, no indication of what you were thinking about in the meantime, creates no disruption to the deal and requires no involvement on the part of the TD. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 19 16:34:24 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:34:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <4EEE49E7.8060409@nhcc.net> <002e01ccbdce$4d8164e0$e8842ea0$@online.no> Message-ID: <7ED430F8-A29B-4E2D-9F2E-7CFEA02D59FF@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 18, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Steve Willner >>> What I'm wondering is why we let players correct mispulls with >>> the bidding >>> cards but not misplays by declarer. (There's an obvious reason >>> not to >>> allow >>> correction of a misplay by a defender.) >> >> [Sven Pran] Simplified: >> We let declarer correct a misplay if it was accidental but not if >> it was >> deliberate. > > I believe you're thinking of plays from dummy, which might have > been the result of an inadvertent designation (Law 45C4{b}, Law > 47C). A play from declarer's hand, if it meets the criteria of Law > 45C1, cannot be changed, just as a play from a defender's hand that > meets the criterion of Law 45C1 cannot be changed (in both cases, > if the "play" does not meet the criteria, the card is not played). > > I would say that if there's an obvious reason not to allow a > defender to change a "misplay", there's an equally obvious reason > not to allow declarer to do so. One "obvious" reason not to allow a defender to change a misplay might be that by doing so he exposes a card to his partner which remains part of his hand, subject to applications of the various laws regarding penalty cards, the disposition thereof, and, most troubling, the complications raised by the fact that "information gained through seeing the penalty card is unauthorized" [L50] to the other defender. I don't see how any of that would "equally obviously" apply to declarer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 19 16:49:10 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:49:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> Message-ID: <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> On Dec 18, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Is it "fair" to allow miss-pulls to be corrected, in certain > circumstances? > > Some BLMLers argue "YES"? because they applaud the WBFLC definition of > "equity" which amounts to "attempting to restore the status-quo". > IMO, the > miss-pull law illustrates some of the flaws in this weird concept of > "Equity": > > - Few directors or players understand miss-pull rules . At club level, > especially, some feel that such laws are complex, unnecessary, and > add > nothing of value to the game. Cutting out the mechanical-error rule > would > simplify the game and make the rules more comprehensible to players. > > - Bridge is a game of mistakes. A bidding-box miss-pull is a > mistake. In > other situations, if you make a careless mistake, you accept the > consequences. The game can continue quite normally without any > special rule. > There is no particular reason why the perpetrator should be allowed to > correct certain careless mistakes but not others. > > - Careless and thoughtless actions disrupt the game and lessen the > enjoyment > of other players. Hence, (correctly, in my view), many Bridge rules > mildly > deter such behaviour. The "mechanical error" law lessens such > deterrence. > Some players resent a law that deliberately sets out to award a > careless > player two bites of the cherry. > > - Players are prone to claim that their miss-pulls are mechanical > errors. > The conscientious director investigates as far as he can. But, > ultimately, > his ruling is a matter of judgement. Directors differ in their > judgement, > resulting in inconsistent rulings. Unfairness is inevitable when > directors > exercise judgement. The miss-pull law, however, is unnecessary. It > introduces easily avoidable unfairness. > > - Few players admit to "slips of the mind". Few confess that they are > uncertain. Such honest players are automatically ruled against. > Rules that > reward dishonesty and punish honesty are fine in games like Liar- > dice or > GTA. Arguably, however, they are inappropriate to Bridge. > > This thread may produce evidence of how such laws work in > practice. One > fear is that such rules impose pressure on professionals who are > hired by > sponsors as partners and team-mates. As an indication of the > problem, can a > director recall practical cases from his own experience where: > - a professional player hired by a sponsor, readily admitted to a > "slip of > the mind", when questioned? > - the director ruled that an error claimed by such a professional > to be a > "slip of the hand" was in fact a "slip of the mind"? So you pick up x/AKJxxx/AQxx/xx as dealer, and do not realize that the last player in your seat has missorted your bidding cards until, to your horror, your 1S card hits the table. Which, of letting your 1S bid stand without remark or making a L25A corrrection to your obviously intended 1H call, better justifies the assertion that "the game can continue quite normally"? Nigel's entire argument rests on asserting the former. Perhaps he'd care to attempt to justify that choice. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 16:51:45 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:51:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> Given the amount of noise around 25A I just want to say that as a director I never had any problems applying this law. Hans From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 19 17:18:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:18:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> References: <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:51:45 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Given the amount of noise around 25A I just want to say that as a > director I > never had any problems applying this law. > > Hans How do you apply it? What percentage of claims of mispull do you reject? If you have a good method, I would like to hear it. Do you ignore "pause for thought". If not, how do you determine that? Or, when do you ignore it and when do you apply it? From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 18:20:06 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:20:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> Message-ID: <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask the table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was supposed to happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if there is nothing pointing the other way I allow it. I cannot remember a dubious case. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 17:19 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:51:45 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Given the amount of noise around 25A I just want to say that as a > director I > never had any problems applying this law. > > Hans How do you apply it? What percentage of claims of mispull do you reject? If you have a good method, I would like to hear it. Do you ignore "pause for thought". If not, how do you determine that? Or, when do you ignore it and when do you apply it? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 19 18:54:28 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:54:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> References: <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:20:06 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask the > table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was supposed > to > happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if there is nothing > pointing the other way I allow it. > > I cannot remember a dubious case. > To me, a lot of things can point the other way. One is just it being a Blackwood response. Another obvious one is pulling from the wrong part of the box. But I am now starting to wonder about people who claim they were trying to bid 1NT and accidentally mispulled 1D. I guess there is the timing thing, if you turn them down because there was pause from thought. You must turn down a lot of claims. What percentage would you guess? I don't have a lot of problems with 25A rulings. Of course, not everyone likes my rulings. Do you routinely turn down claims of mispulls for Blackwood responses? From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 19:29:37 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:29:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> Message-ID: <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> It seems I live in a different world. Nobody has ever tried to convince me they mispulled a Blackwood respone. I also cannot remember a mispull of 1D vs 1NT. In general I think I would allow this if with a different 1NT range 1D would not be a normal bid. In general I have almost never encountered a dishonest player. And I direct from club-level up to international. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 18:54 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:20:06 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask the > table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was supposed > to > happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if there is nothing > pointing the other way I allow it. > > I cannot remember a dubious case. > To me, a lot of things can point the other way. One is just it being a Blackwood response. Another obvious one is pulling from the wrong part of the box. But I am now starting to wonder about people who claim they were trying to bid 1NT and accidentally mispulled 1D. I guess there is the timing thing, if you turn them down because there was pause from thought. You must turn down a lot of claims. What percentage would you guess? I don't have a lot of problems with 25A rulings. Of course, not everyone likes my rulings. Do you routinely turn down claims of mispulls for Blackwood responses? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 19 19:44:35 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:44:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> References: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:29:37 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > It seems I live in a different world. > > Nobody has ever tried to convince me they mispulled a Blackwood respone. > > I also cannot remember a mispull of 1D vs 1NT. In general I think I > would > allow this if with a different 1NT range 1D would not be a normal bid. > > In general I have almost never encountered a dishonest player. And I > direct > from club-level up to international. Sounds nice. Can you clarify? I am still trying to understand your world, and I am still thinking about how I should handle mispulls. If almost everyone is honest, you could just accept the claim of a mispull. But you said you collect evidence and turn down the claim if there is anything pointing in the other direction. Say that happens a third of the time. So you are turning down about a third of the claims even though you know in your heart it really was a mispull? Bob > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 18:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:20:06 -0500, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > >> So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask the >> table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was supposed >> to >> happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if there is nothing >> pointing the other way I allow it. >> >> I cannot remember a dubious case. >> > > To me, a lot of things can point the other way. One is just it being a > Blackwood response. > > Another obvious one is pulling from the wrong part of the box. But I am > now starting to wonder about people who claim they were trying to bid 1NT > and accidentally mispulled 1D. > > I guess there is the timing thing, if you turn them down because there > was > pause from thought. > > You must turn down a lot of claims. What percentage would you guess? > > I don't have a lot of problems with 25A rulings. Of course, not everyone > likes my rulings. Do you routinely turn down claims of mispulls for > Blackwood responses? > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- http://somepsychology.com From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Dec 19 21:10:39 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:10:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <3329F921-6002-48D1-9BB4-7D29E39E3947@starpower.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <3329F921-6002-48D1-9BB4-7D29E39E3947@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4EEF9A3F.2090007@comcast.net> On 12/19/11 9:45 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 17, 2011, at 8:51 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Dec 17, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> In the case of a revoke, a "that was not the card I intended to play" >>> statement carries no weight. So why should it carry weight with >>> respect >>> to bidding box use? >> Different laws, different rulings. There is no equivalent to Law >> 25A in the case of a played card (except for one "designated" to be >> played). > When you correct a revoke, the other players learn that the mispulled > card is in your hand. When you correct an inadvertant call, they > already knew that the mispulled card is in your bidding box. It > would seem obvious that this difference would warrant different forms > of rectification. > > You make a good point. But I do think there is a difference between a mispull and a mispull that is also an insufficient bid, or a mispull and a mispull that is also a reply to an artificial bid. It seems that today these get treated in the same way by most directors...with an excess of forgiveness in my view. I would like to see tougher treatment in these two instances. If you agree, how would you bring this about? If you disagree, perhaps you can help me understand why. --bp From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 19 21:20:28 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:20:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> References: <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> Message-ID: <000301ccbe8b$a7711780$f6534680$@online.no> Just face it Hans: There will always be people looking for problems, and if they do not find any they create some in their imagination. Like you I have never had any problem with Law 25A that I can remember. And most of my L25A rulings are based on body language etc. with the involved players. You and I apparently live in an honest world of bridge players. Regards Sven > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av > Hans van Staveren > Sendt: 19. desember 2011 19:30 > Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Emne: Re: [BLML] mispull log > > It seems I live in a different world. > > Nobody has ever tried to convince me they mispulled a Blackwood respone. > > I also cannot remember a mispull of 1D vs 1NT. In general I think I would > allow this if with a different 1NT range 1D would not be a normal bid. > > In general I have almost never encountered a dishonest player. And I direct > from club-level up to international. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 18:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:20:06 -0500, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > > > So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask > > the table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was > > supposed to happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if > > there is nothing pointing the other way I allow it. > > > > I cannot remember a dubious case. > > > > To me, a lot of things can point the other way. One is just it being a > Blackwood response. > > Another obvious one is pulling from the wrong part of the box. But I am now > starting to wonder about people who claim they were trying to bid 1NT and > accidentally mispulled 1D. > > I guess there is the timing thing, if you turn them down because there was > pause from thought. > > You must turn down a lot of claims. What percentage would you guess? > > I don't have a lot of problems with 25A rulings. Of course, not everyone likes > my rulings. Do you routinely turn down claims of mispulls for Blackwood > responses? > _______________________________________________ > 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 g3 at nige1.com Mon Dec 19 21:30:52 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:30:52 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <142E3F465FE6459AAFB62841F40CB0A6@G3> [Eric Landau] So you pick up x/AKJxxx/AQxx/xx as dealer, and do not realize that the last player in your seat has missorted your bidding cards until, to your horror, your 1S card hits the table. Which, of letting your 1S bid stand without remark or making a L25A corrrection to your obviously intended 1H call, better justifies the assertion that "the game can continue quite normally"? Nigel's entire argument rests on asserting the former. Perhaps he'd care to attempt to justify that choice. [Nigel] There are many simple arguments that players should not be allowed to correct mechanical errors. None rest on Eric's example. I agree, however, that Eric's scenario is a practical possibility and I'm happy to discuss it. In Eric's example case, with or without the miss-pull law, the game continues quite normally. Except, perhaps that, were the current miss-pull rule scrapped, the result would seem fairer, with no director call, no disruption, and no bad feeling. The result would be similar to what happens when a player miss-pulls during the play. For example, last Saturday, playing in a heart slam, declarer led dummy's ace of spades, RHO ruffed with the heart trey, and declarer under-ruffed with the heart deuce. Of course, nobody called the director. Had the director been called, however, should he allow declarer to replace the deuce with the four of hearts? Or should he insist that the original card stay played, hoping that declarer learns to be less careless in future? A slight change to Eric's example illustrates another argument: You hold AQxx/AKJxxx/AKx/- and open a Precision Club. Just before your bidding-card hits the table, you realise that you are playing Standard Acol. Unfortunately, your 1C bid is now face up on the table. If you admit to a "slip of the mind", should the director then treat you differently from another player who claims "slip of the hand" in identical circumstances? We all make stupid mistakes both in bidding and play. We would probably like to take them all back. But bridge is a game of mistakes. if we're allowed If to retract all our mistakes, then Bridge sacrifices its very nature. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 19 22:58:36 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:58:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> Message-ID: <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> Maybe I am naive. When someone calls the director, and says they did not want to bid what they bid, I take them away from the table and ask them what happened. I listen to them, I look at them, sometimes I look at their cards. After about 30 seconds I take a decision. I might be wrong sometimes. But my guess is that I am right well over 90% of the time. That is enough. Again, my impression is that (almost) all bridge players, from club-level to Bermuda Bowl level, are honest. At a low level they are usually not well enough informed about the laws to cheat even if they wanted to(which they don't). At a high level they police themselves. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 19:45 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:29:37 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > It seems I live in a different world. > > Nobody has ever tried to convince me they mispulled a Blackwood respone. > > I also cannot remember a mispull of 1D vs 1NT. In general I think I > would > allow this if with a different 1NT range 1D would not be a normal bid. > > In general I have almost never encountered a dishonest player. And I > direct > from club-level up to international. Sounds nice. Can you clarify? I am still trying to understand your world, and I am still thinking about how I should handle mispulls. If almost everyone is honest, you could just accept the claim of a mispull. But you said you collect evidence and turn down the claim if there is anything pointing in the other direction. Say that happens a third of the time. So you are turning down about a third of the claims even though you know in your heart it really was a mispull? Bob > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 18:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:20:06 -0500, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > >> So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask the >> table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was supposed >> to >> happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if there is nothing >> pointing the other way I allow it. >> >> I cannot remember a dubious case. >> > > To me, a lot of things can point the other way. One is just it being a > Blackwood response. > > Another obvious one is pulling from the wrong part of the box. But I am > now starting to wonder about people who claim they were trying to bid 1NT > and accidentally mispulled 1D. > > I guess there is the timing thing, if you turn them down because there > was > pause from thought. > > You must turn down a lot of claims. What percentage would you guess? > > I don't have a lot of problems with 25A rulings. Of course, not everyone > likes my rulings. Do you routinely turn down claims of mispulls for > Blackwood responses? > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- http://somepsychology.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 20 02:36:30 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:36:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:58:36 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Maybe I am naive. > > When someone calls the director, and says they did not want to bid what > they > bid, I take them away from the table and ask them what happened. > > I listen to them, I look at them, sometimes I look at their cards. > After about 30 seconds I take a decision. > I might be wrong sometimes. But my guess is that I am right well over > 90% of > the time. That is enough. > > Again, my impression is that (almost) all bridge players, from > club-level to > Bermuda Bowl level, are honest. > > At a low level they are usually not well enough informed about the laws > to > cheat even if they wanted to(which they don't). > > At a high level they police themselves. > > Hans It still doesn't add up. You ask them if it was a mispull. They say yes. Maybe you ask them if they remarked on the mispull as soon as they were aware of it. They say yes. If you rule against them if the answer is no to any of these questions, and rule for them if the answer is yes to both questions, wouldn't you be right about 99% of the time (where you direct)? How do you get down to only 90%? > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 19:45 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:29:37 -0500, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > >> It seems I live in a different world. >> >> Nobody has ever tried to convince me they mispulled a Blackwood respone. >> >> I also cannot remember a mispull of 1D vs 1NT. In general I think I >> would >> allow this if with a different 1NT range 1D would not be a normal bid. >> >> In general I have almost never encountered a dishonest player. And I >> direct >> from club-level up to international. > > Sounds nice. Can you clarify? I am still trying to understand your world, > and I am still thinking about how I should handle mispulls. If almost > everyone is honest, you could just accept the claim of a mispull. But you > said you collect evidence and turn down the claim if there is anything > pointing in the other direction. Say that happens a third of the time. So > you are turning down about a third of the claims even though you know in > your heart it really was a mispull? > > Bob > > >> >> Hans >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Robert Frick >> Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 18:54 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log >> >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:20:06 -0500, Hans van Staveren >> wrote: >> >>> So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask the >>> table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was >>> supposed >>> to >>> happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if there is nothing >>> pointing the other way I allow it. >>> >>> I cannot remember a dubious case. >>> >> >> To me, a lot of things can point the other way. One is just it being a >> Blackwood response. >> >> Another obvious one is pulling from the wrong part of the box. But I am >> now starting to wonder about people who claim they were trying to bid >> 1NT >> and accidentally mispulled 1D. >> >> I guess there is the timing thing, if you turn them down because there >> was >> pause from thought. >> >> You must turn down a lot of claims. What percentage would you guess? >> >> I don't have a lot of problems with 25A rulings. Of course, not everyone >> likes my rulings. Do you routinely turn down claims of mispulls for >> Blackwood responses? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- http://somepsychology.com From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Dec 20 03:04:26 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:04:26 +0800 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> Message-ID: <4EEFED2A.3010107@iinet.net.au> On 20/12/2011 9:36 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > (Large snip) > It still doesn't add up. You ask them if it was a mispull. They say yes. > Maybe you ask them if they remarked on the mispull as soon as they were > aware of it. They say yes. If you rule against them if the answer is no to > any of these questions, and rule for them if the answer is yes to both > questions, wouldn't you be right about 99% of the time (where you direct)? > How do you get down to only 90%? The percentages are irrelevant. You are required to rule on the basis of probability. Firstly, have the conditions of the laws been met? Then, is it more probable (on the basis of the available evidence) that the call is unintended than that it is intended ? cheers bill > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 20 03:36:56 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:36:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EEFED2A.3010107@iinet.net.au> References: <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> <4EEFED2A.3010107@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:04:26 -0500, bill kemp wrote: > On 20/12/2011 9:36 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> (Large snip) >> It still doesn't add up. You ask them if it was a mispull. They say yes. >> Maybe you ask them if they remarked on the mispull as soon as they were >> aware of it. They say yes. If you rule against them if the answer is no >> to >> any of these questions, and rule for them if the answer is yes to both >> questions, wouldn't you be right about 99% of the time (where you >> direct)? >> How do you get down to only 90%? > > The percentages are irrelevant. You are required to rule on the basis of > probability. Firstly, have the conditions of the laws been met? Then, is > it more probable (on the basis of the available evidence) that the call > is unintended than that it is intended ? I am doing that. The people claimed they mispull. Where he directs, they do not lie. So if you rule mispull, you are always correct. What is he doing to be wrong 10% of the time (by his estimate). Let's just say that I could be right essentially all of the time at his club and I am puzzled why he is not. From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Wed Dec 21 04:40:43 2011 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:40:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net><000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net><000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net><5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net><9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3><2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net><023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl><023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl><024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> Message-ID: <6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Robert Frick Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 6:44 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:29:37 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > It seems I live in a different world. > > Nobody has ever tried to convince me they mispulled a Blackwood respone. > > I also cannot remember a mispull of 1D vs 1NT. In general I think I > would > allow this if with a different 1NT range 1D would not be a normal bid. > > In general I have almost never encountered a dishonest player. And I > direct > from club-level up to international. Sounds nice. Can you clarify? I am still trying to understand your world, and I am still thinking about how I should handle mispulls. If almost everyone is honest, you could just accept the claim of a mispull. But you said you collect evidence and turn down the claim if there is anything pointing in the other direction. Say that happens a third of the time. So you are turning down about a third of the claims even though you know in your heart it really was a mispull? Bob > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: maandag 19 december 2011 18:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:20:06 -0500, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > >> So far it has been simple. If a player wants to change a call I ask the >> table how it went, I ask the player what happened, and what was supposed >> to >> happen. If the player claims it was a mispull, and if there is nothing >> pointing the other way I allow it. >> >> I cannot remember a dubious case. >> > > To me, a lot of things can point the other way. One is just it being a > Blackwood response. > > Another obvious one is pulling from the wrong part of the box. But I am > now starting to wonder about people who claim they were trying to bid 1NT > and accidentally mispulled 1D. > > I guess there is the timing thing, if you turn them down because there > was > pause from thought. > > You must turn down a lot of claims. What percentage would you guess? > > I don't have a lot of problems with 25A rulings. Of course, not everyone > likes my rulings. Do you routinely turn down claims of mispulls for > Blackwood responses? I like Hans don't find 25A a problem - it's hard to remember exactly when bidding boxes were first widely used but it's certainly most of my TD ife - 25 years + I imagine. My understanding of the Law is that the emphasis is on what used to be described as an Inadvertent call and now is labelled an unintended call. I take the player away from the table and ask him directly what he intended - I usually say something like "What were you trying to do? Which bidding card did you intend to take from the box?" If I think it necessary, I explain that the Law allows a change from an unintended call to an intended call - and that it does NOT allow a change of mind or of an correction of a mistake resulting from a miscounting of points or Aces, forgetting the system or whatever. Like Hans I don't think that the enormous majority of players are deceitful or tell me lies in this situation. Asked a direct question and if the Law is explained, it has been my experience that the answers I have received have been genuine and honest. I am aware that once, many years ago, a player was dishonest in this situation - as I recall It was a 1NT rebid after a 1 Diamond opening and a major response from his partner - unfortunately his right hand opponent had overcalled 2 Clubs. The conversation was entirely at the table and this is one reason I prefer to take the player away. My impression was that no one at the table believed him and I certainly didn't. Nonetheless short of directly accusing him of lying I'd backed myself and him into a corner where there was no simple way out. His opponents accepted the "inadvertent" nature of his call and the bidding proceeded with his 1NT rebid changed to what he claimed was his "intended" call of 2 Diamonds. It never worried me greatly that on this occasion he had got away with it, because I was convinced that this was not a situation that was likely to recur. There are players who lie - who deny that they have agreements or deliberately fail to give accurate accounts of what has happened, but it my experience this is not a major problem in the English game. Moreover both experienced players and TDs are quite aware of less trustworthy individuals. Faced with the same Law 25A problem today - away from the table - I would express my disbelief quite clearly in this situation. I would tell the player - and later the table that I was not convinced that the error was "inadvertent" and was therefore not allowing the change. I'd tell the player that this was a judgement ruling by me and tell him that he could appeal later if he wanted. I'm pretty damn sure that no player in this situation would have the nerve to go to an appeal committee and continue his "story". I cannot imagine an appeals committee being convinced when I had not been. Of course, I am a pretty senior director, but I would advise and support a junior colleague to act in the same way. I'm quite happy to interpret the "attempt to change without pause for thought" quite liberally - if a player summons the TD and explains his problem for example I am happy to treat this as such an attempt if I am convinced that your call was truly unintended. I think the experienced TD should not have great difficulty in telling the difference between an genuine unintended call and a "brain fart" - If you've got one Ace and respond five Diamonds to Blackwood when your system response to show one Ace is Five Clubs and then you tell me this is a mispull, I shall remind you that Murdoch Junior is still saying that he never read his emails and no one believes him even if it is true and that's just unlucky. I shall ask you if you've ever played that 5D showed one Ace or even perhaps heard that other players did this. I shall explain that in such a case it is impossible to convince me that such a mistake was truly unintentional as intended by the Lawmakers. It would be easy to replace Law 25 with a hard line approach. "Once a call is made it stands." - I personally don't think it would improve the game and as player I'm happy to allow my opponents to change their unintended calls. If a player "alerts" with a redouble card do you really want the TD to have to make a ruling on an out of rotation and inadmissible redouble? or uses a double card as a Stop Card?? I dont think this would make bridge a better game. Mike Amos From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Dec 20 11:26:18 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:26:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> <4EEFED2A.3010107@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4EF062CA.9040403@btinternet.com> On 20/12/2011 02:36, Robert Frick wrote: > I am doing that. The people claimed they mispull. Where he directs, > they do not lie. So if you rule mispull, you are always correct. What > is he doing to be wrong 10% of the time (by his estimate). Let's just > say that I could be right essentially all of the time at his club and > I am puzzled why he is not. There are two reasons why they might claim they have mispulled when they have not: either they lied, or they misunderstood. That's why it's so important to be sure they have properly understood the distinction between a change of mind and an unintended call, and once they have, you can usually accept their assessment of what happened. Certainly I find enough players at this stage withdraw their request to change the call, that I don't think many are trying it on. Like others, I haven't really identified the problem that you seem so worried about. I can only think of one time when I wondered afterwards whether the call really was a mispull - he had bid 2NT over 1S and wanted to bid 2S instead. It seems innocuous enough, but I didn't ask enough questions, and if I had enquired more I would have discovered that they were playing 2S to show the minors. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been a mispull, but it would certainly have made me grill him more. I do however quite often encounter people who claim an insufficient bid was unintended (often they claim it for their partner!), and they need to have the legal meaning of "unintended" properly explained to them. Gordon Rainsford From B.Schelen at Claranet.NL Tue Dec 20 11:40:42 2011 From: B.Schelen at Claranet.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net><000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net><5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net><9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3><2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net><023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl><023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl><024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl><025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:58:36 -0500, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > >> Maybe I am naive. >> >> When someone calls the director, and says they did not want to bid what >> they >> bid, I take them away from the table and ask them what happened. >> >> I listen to them, I look at them, sometimes I look at their cards. >> After about 30 seconds I take a decision. >> I might be wrong sometimes. But my guess is that I am right well over >> 90% of >> the time. That is enough. >> >> Again, my impression is that (almost) all bridge players, from >> club-level to >> Bermuda Bowl level, are honest. >> >> At a low level they are usually not well enough informed about the laws >> to >> cheat even if they wanted to(which they don't). >> >> At a high level they police themselves. >> >> Hans > > It still doesn't add up. You ask them if it was a mispull. They say yes. > Maybe you ask them if they remarked on the mispull as soon as they were > aware of it. They say yes. If you rule against them if the answer is no to > any of these questions, and rule for them if the answer is yes to both > questions, wouldn't you be right about 99% of the time (where you direct)? > How do you get down to only 90%? > Hans did not ask if it was a mispull. He just asked what happened: an open question. If you asks if it was a mispull and the player answers yes you have a problem in case you do not believe him. Ben From blml at arcor.de Tue Dec 20 11:53:24 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:53:24 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> Message-ID: <578467631.242132.1324378404896.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:58:36 -0500, Hans van Staveren > wrote: > > > Maybe I am naive. > > > > When someone calls the director, and says they did not want to bid what > > they > > bid, I take them away from the table and ask them what happened. > > > > I listen to them, I look at them, sometimes I look at their cards. > > After about 30 seconds I take a decision. > > I might be wrong sometimes. But my guess is that I am right well over > > 90% of > > the time. That is enough. > > > > Again, my impression is that (almost) all bridge players, from > > club-level to > > Bermuda Bowl level, are honest. > > > > At a low level they are usually not well enough informed about the laws > > to > > cheat even if they wanted to(which they don't). > > > > At a high level they police themselves. > > > > Hans > > It still doesn't add up. You ask them if it was a mispull. They say yes. > Maybe you ask them if they remarked on the mispull as soon as they were > aware of it. They say yes. If you rule against them if the answer is no to > any of these questions, and rule for them if the answer is yes to both > questions, wouldn't you be right about 99% of the time (where you direct)? > > How do you get down to only 90%? I don't think the TD should ask "did you make a mispull". The TD should ask "open" questions like "describe what happened", "demonstrate how you pulled the 1S card out of the bidding box". Not suggestive yes-no type questions. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 20 16:14:33 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:14:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> Message-ID: <28F64770-07A0-45F6-B0AE-3282F8840464@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:29:37 -0500, Hans van Staveren > > wrote: > >> It seems I live in a different world. >> >> Nobody has ever tried to convince me they mispulled a Blackwood >> respone. >> >> I also cannot remember a mispull of 1D vs 1NT. In general I think I >> would >> allow this if with a different 1NT range 1D would not be a normal >> bid. >> >> In general I have almost never encountered a dishonest player. And I >> direct >> from club-level up to international. > > Sounds nice. Can you clarify? I am still trying to understand your > world, > and I am still thinking about how I should handle mispulls. If almost > everyone is honest, you could just accept the claim of a mispull. > But you > said you collect evidence and turn down the claim if there is anything > pointing in the other direction. Say that happens a third of the > time. So > you are turning down about a third of the claims even though you > know in > your heart it really was a mispull? Almost everyone *is* honest, but few comprehend the subtle distinction required to correctly apply L25. A "mispull", to them, means they should have pulled a different card, period, and the dictionary agrees with them. It's up to us to figure out whether their mispull was a "slip of the hand" (L25A) or a "slip of the brain" (L25B). But it's not hard. Because they're (almost all) honest, you can ask them what they we're thinking at the moment they reached for their bidding box, and they'll tell you. "I was trying to show my two aces," probably warrants a L25B ruling, (along with, for the sufficiently sophisticated customers, a short lecture on the subtle principle involved). "Huh? What? I wasn't' thinking about anything in particular; I was just trying to bid 5H," probably gets a L25A ruling. As Richard keeps reminding us, it's all about collecting the evidence and weighing the balance of probabilities, which is what directors get paid to do. If you find yourself "turning down" a customer's claim to redress "even though you know your heart it really" should have been accepted, you are not doing your job properly. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 20 16:32:55 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:32:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <000201ccbcda$cfa59710$6ef0c530$@online.no> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECC26E.3040508@ulb.ac.be> <000201ccbcda$cfa59710$6ef0c530$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EF0AAA7.8070006@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/12/2011 17:42, Sven Pran a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: >>>> OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an exposed card? >>> [Sven Pran] Not a penalty, but a rectification (unless OS is the >>> declaring >>> side) - you had better watch what you write. >> AG : I don't agree. The limitations on partner are penalties, not > rectifications. > > [Sven Pran] Not after 2007! > > Don't confuse the adjective "penalty" as in "penalty card" with the noun > "penalty". > > The latter is now only used on cases of procedural or disciplinary > penalties. > All other cases where the earlier laws used the noun "penalty" are now > "rectifications". > > > According to TFLB, they are ; according to any dictionary, they're still penalties. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 20 16:34:08 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:34:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EF0AAF0.8050006@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/12/2011 18:06, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 12/17/11 11:13 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> Robert Park >>> On 12/17/11 10:35 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >>>>> Robert Park >>>>> On 12/17/11 4:29 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>>>> On 16/12/2011 13:51, Robert Park wrote: >>>>>>> Would not the laws be simpler, easier to apply, and in the long run >>>>>>> just as fair if one just had to live with a "mispull?" That is, >>>>>>> after all, what we do with revokes, >>>>>> Is that how you rule in cases of revokes? >>>>>> >>>>>> Gordon Rainsford >>>>> Are there any cases, except in the end game, where you get to un- >>> revoke? >>>>> --bp >>>> [Sven Pran] Have you never experienced a revoke not becoming >>> established? >>> >>> >>> OK, but isn't there still a penalty involved regarding an exposed card? >> [Sven Pran] Not a penalty, but a rectification (unless OS is the declaring >> side) - you had better watch what you write. >> And if the offender just had to live with his "mispull" then absolutely >> every revoke would become established. Is that what you want? >> >> The question: " Is that how you rule in cases of revokes?" was highly >> relevant. > I think you are twisting my point. Why should a mispull be a freebie, > when a revoke (except in the end game) is not? AG : because a revoke will nearly always cost opps at least one trick, something which has to be compensated for ; while a mispull will most probably affect your own score. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 20 16:35:39 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:35:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be> <4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com> <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EF0AB4B.8000904@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/12/2011 20:16, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 12/17/11 1:19 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: >> On Dec 17, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Robert Park wrote: >>> I think you are twisting my point. Why should a mispull be a freebie, >>> when a revoke (except in the end game) is not? >>> >>> Both, after all, result from a lack of attention. >>> --bp >> A mispull is not a freebie. There are specific prerequisites in the law to allowing a Law 25A change. If those prerequisites are not met, the change is not allowed, even if it truly was a mispull. >> > It seems to me that bidding box actions don't always fit neatly into > 25A, a law that traces it history to a time before bidding boxes came > into being. > > What I am reacting to (in part) is that 3 times in the past 2 weeks, an > opponent made an insufficient bid as an overcall. I immediately called a > halt and asked for the director, at which point the opponent said that > that was not the card he intended to lay on the table (a claim we do not > dispute). In each case, the director allowed "mispull (twice after > looking at the opponent's hand, though I'm not sure why that is > relevant)," and the opponent was allowed to replace his bid. > > It's not clear to me that this meets the "without pause for thought" > clause of 25A, yet it seems to be what standard director practice is today. > > In the case of a revoke, a "that was not the card I intended to play" > statement carries no weight. AG : it does. That's what minor penalty cards are for. > So why should it carry weight with respect > to bidding box use? > > --bp > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 20 17:10:56 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:10:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <142E3F465FE6459AAFB62841F40CB0A6@G3> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <142E3F465FE6459AAFB62841F40CB0A6@G3> Message-ID: On Dec 19, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau] > So you pick up x/AKJxxx/AQxx/xx as dealer, and do not realize that > the last > player in your seat has missorted your bidding cards until, to > your horror, > your 1S card hits the table. Which, of letting your 1S bid stand > without > remark or making a L25A corrrection to your obviously intended 1H > call, > better justifies the assertion that "the game can continue quite > normally"? > Nigel's entire argument rests on asserting the former. Perhaps > he'd care to > attempt to justify that choice. > > [Nigel] > There are many simple arguments that players should not be allowed to > correct mechanical errors. None rest on Eric's example. I agree, > however, > that Eric's scenario is a practical possibility and I'm happy to > discuss it. > > In Eric's example case, with or without the miss-pull law, the game > continues quite normally. Except, perhaps that, were the current > miss-pull > rule scrapped, the result would seem fairer, with no director call, no > disruption, and no bad feeling. > > The result would be similar to what happens when a player miss- > pulls during > the play. For example, last Saturday, playing in a heart slam, > declarer led > dummy's ace of spades, RHO ruffed with the heart trey, and declarer > under-ruffed with the heart deuce. Of course, nobody called the > director. > Had the director been called, however, should he allow declarer to > replace > the deuce with the four of hearts? Or should he insist that the > original > card stay played, hoping that declarer learns to be less careless > in future? > > A slight change to Eric's example illustrates another argument: You > hold > AQxx/AKJxxx/AKx/- and open a Precision Club. Just before your > bidding-card > hits the table, you realise that you are playing Standard Acol. > Unfortunately, your 1C bid is now face up on the table. If you > admit to a > "slip of the mind", should the director then treat you differently > from > another player who claims "slip of the hand" in identical > circumstances? > > We all make stupid mistakes both in bidding and play. We would > probably like > to take them all back. But bridge is a game of mistakes. if we're > allowed > If to retract all our mistakes, then Bridge > sacrifices its very nature. Nigel and I have had our differences, but this time I set him a challenge and he has responded so cogently and convincingly as to bring me over to his point of view on this issue. Bidding has become a science over the last half century, with complex, elaborate, often highly artificial methods replacing simple methods that depended largely on seat-of-the-pants judgment. The ideal seems to be to make bidding as automatic as possible, with judgment reduced to an afterthought. I realize now that I would relish the opportunity to test my mettle by trying to meet the challenge presented by my own example, having opened 1S on that hand and, without recourse to L25A, just keeping a poker face and letting the auction continue. With no artificial or conventional bidding able to help me now, I would be forced to rely entirely on judgment, creativity and original thinking alone. And for me, the game is more fun when that's what it's about, rather than merely testing one's ability to memorize hundreds of pages of automatic this-hand-on-this-auction-demands-this-bid roboticism. It's not just about mistakes. When the law helps us avoid unfamiliar situations, when it protects us from our own judgment, creativity and original thinking, then, as Nigel says, bridge sacrifices it's very nature. But I recognize, as perhaps Nigel does not, that a majority of duplicate bridge players just don't see things that way. Hence the oongoing campaign to drive psychs from the game entirely, the continued insistence on laws and regulations designed to "protect the field" even though TFLB explicitly rejects that notion, and the pervasive notion that it's somehow "unfair" to confront one's opponents with situations for which their lessons and bridge books have not prepared them. It has been suggested to me that if what I really want is a game of judgment, creativity and original thinking, perhaps I should take up poker. So I now join Nigel in his support for the elimination of L25A from TFLB, but anticipate that by doiing so I have switched over to the losing side. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 20 18:23:13 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:23:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <142E3F465FE6459AAFB62841F40CB0A6@G3> Message-ID: <4EF0C481.4030804@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/12/2011 17:10, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 19, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Eric Landau] >> So you pick up x/AKJxxx/AQxx/xx as dealer, and do not realize that >> the last >> player in your seat has missorted your bidding cards until, to >> your horror, >> your 1S card hits the table. Which, of letting your 1S bid stand >> without >> remark or making a L25A corrrection to your obviously intended 1H >> call, >> better justifies the assertion that "the game can continue quite >> normally"? >> Nigel's entire argument rests on asserting the former. Perhaps >> he'd care to >> attempt to justify that choice. >> >> [Nigel] >> There are many simple arguments that players should not be allowed to >> correct mechanical errors. None rest on Eric's example. I agree, >> however, >> that Eric's scenario is a practical possibility and I'm happy to >> discuss it. >> >> In Eric's example case, with or without the miss-pull law, the game >> continues quite normally. Except, perhaps that, were the current >> miss-pull >> rule scrapped, the result would seem fairer, with no director call, no >> disruption, and no bad feeling. >> >> The result would be similar to what happens when a player miss- >> pulls during >> the play. For example, last Saturday, playing in a heart slam, >> declarer led >> dummy's ace of spades, RHO ruffed with the heart trey, and declarer >> under-ruffed with the heart deuce. Of course, nobody called the >> director. >> Had the director been called, however, should he allow declarer to >> replace >> the deuce with the four of hearts? Or should he insist that the >> original >> card stay played, hoping that declarer learns to be less careless >> in future? >> >> A slight change to Eric's example illustrates another argument: You >> hold >> AQxx/AKJxxx/AKx/- and open a Precision Club. Just before your >> bidding-card >> hits the table, you realise that you are playing Standard Acol. >> Unfortunately, your 1C bid is now face up on the table. If you >> admit to a >> "slip of the mind", should the director then treat you differently >> from >> another player who claims "slip of the hand" in identical >> circumstances? >> >> We all make stupid mistakes both in bidding and play. We would >> probably like >> to take them all back. But bridge is a game of mistakes. if we're >> allowed >> If to retract all our mistakes, then Bridge >> sacrifices its very nature. > Nigel and I have had our differences, but this time I set him a > challenge and he has responded so cogently and convincingly as to > bring me over to his point of view on this issue. > > Bidding has become a science over the last half century, with > complex, elaborate, often highly artificial methods replacing simple > methods that depended largely on seat-of-the-pants judgment. The > ideal seems to be to make bidding as automatic as possible, with > judgment reduced to an afterthought. > > I realize now that I would relish the opportunity to test my mettle > by trying to meet the challenge presented by my own example, having > opened 1S on that hand and, without recourse to L25A, just keeping a > poker face and letting the auction continue. With no artificial or > conventional bidding able to help me now, I would be forced to rely > entirely on judgment, creativity and original thinking alone. AG : it would be interesting indeed, if only you weren't liable to public chastisment for psyching, especially if you succeed (who believes 'I pulled the wrong bid' nowadays ?) > But I recognize, as perhaps Nigel does not, that a majority of > duplicate bridge players just don't see things that way. Hence the > oongoing campaign to drive psychs from the game entirely, AG : sorry, but IMOBO said abhorrence of psyches is based on other reasons : it might spoil the pleasure of other players, because when it works there will always be a suspicion that something happened. (I don't claim that it's right) > the > continued insistence on laws and regulations designed to "protect the > field" even though TFLB explicitly rejects that notion AG : it might, but several rules are there for precisely this reason - not the first time TF***LB letter contradicts its spirit. Examples : the allowance to OBs to regulate complex conventions ; the possibility of split scores. > , and the > pervasive notion that it's somehow "unfair" to confront one's > opponents with situations for which their lessons and bridge books > have not prepared them. It has been suggested to me that if what I > really want is a game of judgment, creativity and original thinking, > perhaps I should take up poker. > > So I now join Nigel in his support for the elimination of L25A from > TFLB, but anticipate that by doiing so I have switched over to the > losing side. AG : are you suggesting that you're willing to put yourself into a handicap just to make the game more interesting ? I think that many lesser mortals don't need this. BTW, I also disagree with your statement that complex methods diminish the need for judgment ; rather, they give i more occasions to be used efficiently. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 20 19:50:36 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:50:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:40:43 -0500, Mike Amos wrote: > I think the experienced TD should not have great difficulty in telling > the difference between an genuine unintended call and a "brain fart" - > If > you've got one Ace and respond five Diamonds to Blackwood when your > system response to show one Ace is Five Clubs and then you tell me this > is a > mispull, I shall remind you that Murdoch Junior is still saying that he > never read his emails and no one believes him even if it is true and > that's just unlucky. I shall ask you if you've ever played that 5D > showed one Ace or even perhaps heard that other players did this. I > shall explain that in such a case it is impossible to convince me that > such a mistake was truly > unintentional as intended by the Lawmakers. > What you are saying here seems to be that you reject all claims of mispull for Blackwood responses. You don't play lie detector; you don't call them a liar; you just say that if he is telling the truth, that's unlucky because you are ruling against him. I have decided the same. I realized that far too many claims of mispull were occurring on Blackwood sequences. If you look, little pieces of advice like this are scattered around. The ACBL says that one should generally not accept a claim of mispull if the claimed mispull came from the other slot in the bidding box. (I am starting to think that questions should start getting asked when the two calls are not adjacent.) Ton provides advice for the pass of partner's conventional bid. This would anyway be covered by the call coming from a different part of the box. Gordon's post suggests another good guideline. A player overcalls 1S with 2NT. Normally that shows the minors. But these players have a strange system where they overcall 2S to show the minors. Now the director has to decide, did the player forget the system or make a mispull? When forgetting the system is a reasonably possible, the claim of mispull should be autmomatically rejected. Another has been suggested here -- when the bid could have been the result of not seeing RHO's bid (usually leading to an insufficient bid), the claim of mispull should probably be rejected. (It does not make a lot of difference for this ruling, though). Is there other guidance anywhere? Agree? In rereading these, many seem to be in your "brain fart" category. The director could just always accept the claim of mispull. But I think that leads to exactly the problem Nigel is complaining about. Or the director could try to play lie director and be prepared to call the player a liar. But this goes against the principles consistently written into the lawbook -- it tries to avoid situations where liars can prosper and it tires to avoid making the director play lie detector. FINAL SOLUTION (for directors who don't want to play lie detector and who worry about letting liars prosper): Assess (1) if the error is mechanically plausible and (2) if there is any reason to suspect brain fart (see list above). If the answers are yes and no, accept the claim of mispull; otherwise, reject. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 20 20:28:43 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:28:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) Message-ID: Comments? Problems? ------------------------------------------------------ Remove L54B -- the option to accept an opening lead, remain declarer, and see the dummy before playing. Change L54A so it is triggered whenever declarer exposes any card. The first three options for opening lead are needed to ensure restoration of equity. There has to be a fourth option, to accept the lead, because players might do that without realizing the lead is out of turn. Given that the lead can be accepted accidentally, players who notice the lead out of turn should have the same right to accept it. However, it can be accepted by becoming dummy. That leaves no need for the choice to accept the lead, remain declarer, and see the dummy. Ironically, if the player doesn't realize that the lead is out of turn and plays just one card thinking he is declarer, the director might apply L54A and make him dummy. Anyway, no one does this -- if they think the lead is proper, they think they are dummy. If you eliminated this option, then the exposure of any card would make declarer dummy. I have seen this option taken at least twice in the time I have been directing, though I suspect it was a bad decision in both of those cases. The fact is, this option is very rarely selected. I am sure we can find situations where a declarer would like to choose it. But it still wouldn't be needed to restore equity, and declarer will be able to achieve about the same goals by just becoming dummy. ADVANTAGE The real advantage here is shortening the list of options the director has to tell declarer. There are way too many options. Confusion is actually common. If I say them fast to speed things up, they have trouble understanding. You would be cutting out one of the more complicated options. I think you would be left with four options that made sense. It is an easy change to advertise. Directors need to know of the change, but players do not need to know in advance. It can be easily justified: It was a rarely chosen option, it was not needed for purposes of equity, and everyone thought it good to reduce the number of options to a more manageable level. You will look good. DISADVANTAGES Hard to find, except maybe tradition. I think the option is there for logical reasons, not practical reasons. It is convenient to treat OLOOTs like LOOTs, and LOOT has this option. Of course, the LOOT during play has to have this option, because declarers naturally accept the lead this way; OLOOT is better without the option and declarers do not naturally accept the lead this way; it's a logical difference between LOOTs and OLOOTs. From g3 at nige1.com Tue Dec 20 21:10:49 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:10:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> References: <4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no> <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <025401ccbe99$5bf3f490$13dbddb0$@nl> Message-ID: [Hans van Staveren] Maybe I am naive [snip]. I take a decision. I might be wrong sometimes But my guess is that I am right well over 90% of the time. That is enough. Again, my impression is that (almost) all bridge players, from club-level to Bermuda Bowl level, are honest. At a low level they are usually not well enough informed about the laws to cheat even if they wanted to(which they don't). At a high level they police themselves. [Nigel] I suppose the same is true of most bridge-players that I encounter. I'm sure that they are as honest as Hans' acquaintances. When they miss-pull a bid they do say it is a slip of the hand not the a slip of the mind but well over 90% of the time the director agrees with them. Admittedly, only a telepathic director could be certain of this ruling. Bridge-players are a cross-section of society, however, and rarely fall from grace. They wouldn't dream of rationalizing doubtful behaviour. I can be reassured by the knowledge that no person I know would break a marriage vow, exceed a speed limit, over-claim on expenses, or falsify a tax-return :) From g3 at nige1.com Tue Dec 20 21:35:19 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:35:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EF0C481.4030804@ulb.ac.be> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3><2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net><142E3F465FE6459AAFB62841F40CB0A6@G3> <4EF0C481.4030804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8DE7439F148642B484425EF5A4A646AA@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner] Are you [Eric Landau] suggesting that you're willing to put yourself into a handicap just to make the game more interesting ? I think that many lesser mortals don't need this. BTW, I also disagree with your statement that complex methods diminish the need for judgment; rather, they give i more occasions to be used efficiently. [Nige1] I suppose that Eric may have had a sudden rush of common-sense to the head. Otherwise, I fear that his whole post was intended to be sarcastic :( The current laws imperfect. They are also complex. I think players would be happier to put up with minor inconvenience if the laws were simpler and they could understand most of them. I agree with Alains' second point. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 21 00:08:13 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:08:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills quoting John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2006: >>Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in >>contravention of Law, even if there is established custom >>and practice that accepts the Law is frequently broken. [snip] >>must go back to the Law even if people think that the Law >>is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it >>this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the >>Law is in force here and today. Nigel Guthrie: >A pity that so few directors seem to agree with Richard and >John. For example, Richard Hills: ... last night Hashmat Ali passed my Redouble of 3H, due to us playing penalty redoubles in most sequences. But if Hashmat had immediately retrieved his Pass card without pause for thought, due to realising that in this sequence XX was a relay, not to play, would Law 25A or Law 25B apply? Trick question, due to the premise containing an obvious contradiction-in-terms. "Without pause for thought" is completely inconsistent with "realising that". So, Law 25B. [As it happened, Hashmat was blissfully unaware of the glitch until the Correction Period, when I was obliged to inform the opponents that a wheel had fallen off. I played my 2-1 heart fit with great tenacity, but still went five down -2200.] Nigel Guthrie: >has any BLMLer ever seen zero tolerance legislation >enforced, even when the offence is in the director's >presence? Richard Hills: One must draw a distinction between "mandatory" regs and "discretionary" regs. At the January 2011 Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge there were mandatory fines of 3 VPs for audible mobile (cell) phones during the session. On the other hand, there were discretionary Law 91 disciplinary penalties for infractions of the Proprieties. But whether or not the Director would exercise that discretion would depend upon a number of criteria. One criterion was whether the player concerned should have known better. Thus in January 2011 a very experienced Aussie super- expert who indeed should have known better was awarded a Law 91 zero tolerance penalty for infracting Law 74B5. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111220/237b03c4/attachment-0001.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 02:42:51 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] An unusual UI question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1324431771.857.YahooMailNeo@web65407.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? Bridge is a?game of mind which requires thought - analytical application of knowledge. Players are not expected to play automatically and "unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction" (L73D1). Normal hesitation is not an infraction; it is part of the game and I find that sometimes we put too much emphasis on it. ? The knowledge that declarer may perceive partner's conduct and may take advantage of it is not a matter of Laws but a matter of 'table presence'. ? But, if you ask "May I modify my defence based on this knowledge?" that is a different question. ? Partner's hesitation generates a new situation with a different defensive strategy which you wouldn't choose had the hesitation not occurred and the information would not have been transmitted. This doesn?t sound ethical. (*) ? But, looking at this problem from a different point of view I would say, if you are so good to correctly decipher partner's hesitation, opponent's level of awareness, opponent's (correct) translation of the hesitation, and opponent's possible new strategy, then go ahead and use all this knowledge. ? The sine qua nons conditions of the case are "a very competent and aware player" and "a second best defence". ? If your opponent IS NOT up to the credit you give him, you are not going to get an advantage from this second best defence. (Like in Kit?s case) ? If your opponent IS up to your expectation, then the challenge is fair and the game will only be more exciting, more beautiful. ? In any case, it is refreshing to know that a player of Kit's value has ethical considerations to such an extent. ? Anda ? -------------------- ? (*) Let?s think of a situation that occurs much often than Kit Woolsey?s case. ? Partner is on lead. He thinks for a few seconds within the limit of normal but sufficient for a perceptive player to understand that he doesn?t have an automatic lead and might have a problem. You know that declarer will use this information. ? Now let's say you are sure that your partner will read correctly the hand regardless of your carding (i.e. you have a yarborough). ? How many players in this situation will change their normal carding and make a false discard in order to counterpoise the information declarer got from partner?s slow lead? ? ________________________________ From: Adam Wildavsky http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/kits-korner/1021-dodging-the-endplay A long discussion but well worth reading. The laws question comes near the end. For those who don't want to read through, here's my summary: ? Your partner hesitates. This tells you nothing relevant about the deal, since you already know where all the cards are. It tells declarer something, though. ? Is your knowledge that declarer can take advantage of partner's hesitation authorized to you? Why or why not? If this kind of situation has been discussed on BLML previously I'd love a reference! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111221/19f54f76/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 21 04:23:00 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:23:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What now? Message-ID: <4EF15114.4080304@nhcc.net> I think the Laws do not explicitly cover the following: Declarer calls for a heart from dummy. Dummy places a club in played position, play continues heart, heart, heart. Assume no hand is void in either hearts or clubs. No one draws attention to the club wrongly played until after both sides have played to the next trick. 1. Who won the trick in question? 2. Were there three revokes (failures to play a club) or none (or possibly one by dummy with no penalty)? Laws 45 and 45C4a may be relevant, but I hope there's something else I've missed. If not, Grattan, is there room in your notebook? From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Dec 21 06:37:31 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:37:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What now? In-Reply-To: <4EF15114.4080304@nhcc.net> References: <4EF15114.4080304@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <74A21AF8-50F2-4360-A21F-3090D9C3EA7E@mac.com> On Dec 20, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > I think the Laws do not explicitly cover the following: > > Declarer calls for a heart from dummy. Dummy places a club in played > position, play continues heart, heart, heart. Assume no hand is void in > either hearts or clubs. No one draws attention to the club wrongly > played until after both sides have played to the next trick. > > 1. Who won the trick in question? > > 2. Were there three revokes (failures to play a club) or none (or > possibly one by dummy with no penalty)? > > Laws 45 and 45C4a may be relevant, but I hope there's something else > I've missed. If not, Grattan, is there room in your notebook? 1. The highest heart wins the trick (Law 44F). 2. No revokes. The placement of the club in the trick is an infraction of Law 45D, but it's too late to correct it, so it stands. It's not a revoke, because the card *played* from dummy's hand was "a heart" (Law 45B). It looks like there should be no further rectification, although if it results in damage to the defense, the TD could adjust the score (Law 12A1). That's my take. The laws could certainly be clearer on this point, and it's probably worth cleaning up in the next revision. In fact, it's probably worth a look and interpretation by the WBFLC *now*. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Dec 21 06:56:40 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:56:40 +0800 Subject: [BLML] What now? In-Reply-To: <4EF15114.4080304@nhcc.net> References: <4EF15114.4080304@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EF17518.40907@iinet.net.au> On 21/12/2011 11:23 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > I think the Laws do not explicitly cover the following: > > Declarer calls for a heart from dummy. Dummy places a club in played > position, play continues heart, heart, heart. Assume no hand is void in > either hearts or clubs. No one draws attention to the club wrongly > played until after both sides have played to the next trick. > > 1. Who won the trick in question? > > 2. Were there three revokes (failures to play a club) or none (or > possibly one by dummy with no penalty)? > > Laws 45 and 45C4a may be relevant, but I hope there's something else > I've missed. If not, Grattan, is there room in your notebook? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > If we start at L45 D then after both sides had played to the next trick: If hearts were trumps, the player who played the highest Heart won the trick. In any other case, the club won the trick. So: there may have been a correct lead or a lead out of turn (which was accepted) to the next trick and at least 3 of the players had played to the trick,,,,,,,,,,,play continues. at the end of the hand the director rules who won the club/heart trick and That there is no rectification for the revokes (L64 B7). If I wished to give equity under L64 C the I would consider both sides offending, perhaps removing an advantage with a split score. cheers bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111221/f28eb2c6/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Dec 21 08:18:06 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:18:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?What_now=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4EF17518.40907@iinet.net.au> References: <4EF17518.40907@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <1RdGRC-0sNphY0@fwd20.aul.t-online.de> Von: bill kemp > On 21/12/2011 11:23 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > > I think the Laws do not explicitly cover the following: Declarer > calls for a heart from dummy. Dummy places a club in played > position, play continues heart, heart, heart. Assume no hand is void > in either hearts or clubs. No one draws attention to the club > wrongly played until after both sides have played to the next trick. > 1. Who won the trick in question? 2. Were there three revokes > (failures to play a club) or none (or possibly one by dummy with no > penalty)? Laws 45 and 45C4a may be relevant, but I hope there's > something else I've missed. If not, Grattan, is there room in your > notebook? > list Blml at rtflb.org [1] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > [2] If we start at L45 D then after both sides had > played to the next trick: > > If hearts were trumps, the player who played the highest Heart > won the trick. > > In any other case, the club won the trick. > > So: > > there may have been a correct lead or a lead out of turn (which > was accepted) to the next trick and at least 3 of the players > had played to the trick,,,,,,,,,,,play continues. > > at the end of the hand the director rules > > who won the club/heart trick > > and > > That there is no rectification for the revokes (L64 B7). > > If I wished to give equity under L64 C the I would consider > both sides offending, perhaps removing an advantage with a split > score. No. Law 45D says "... dummy places in the played position a card ..." which means - in combination with Law 45B "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card ..." - that the club is _not_ a played card; even when it is too late to withdraw that card from the trick. Nevertheless the heart was the card played and therefore Law 44E/F says - either heart was trump --> 44E; or - heart was not trump --> 44F, the highest heart wins (won) the trick ("... highest card of the suit led."). If the TD deemes that the defenders were damaged through dummys refusal to "play" the card played / named by declarer, TD can apply Law 12 A1 to give them redress. And yes, I agree the laws could be more specific in this matter. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Dec 21 10:30:51 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:30:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What now? In-Reply-To: <1RdGRC-0sNphY0@fwd20.aul.t-online.de> References: <4EF17518.40907@iinet.net.au> <1RdGRC-0sNphY0@fwd20.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003801ccbfc3$3ae81d00$b0b85700$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Gentlemen you do surprise me, closing 2011 this really is a nice question which should draw the attention of the LC. The answer isn't clear at all. I feel sympathy for Peter's approach, the highest heart winning the trick. But what if that highest heart is in dummy? Could it win two tricks? And what if dummy plays a club instead and everybody follows clubs? Nobody winning this trick then? Or the dummy by definition, 'playing' the highest heart? Do we have four established revokes in that case? I am happy we added L 64C7. What surprises me most is that this problem has never been discussed in detail before as far as I know, goodness gracious. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter Eidt Verzonden: woensdag 21 december 2011 8:18 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] What now? Von: bill kemp > On 21/12/2011 11:23 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > > I think the Laws do not explicitly cover the following: Declarer > calls for a heart from dummy. Dummy places a club in played > position, play continues heart, heart, heart. Assume no hand is void > in either hearts or clubs. No one draws attention to the club > wrongly played until after both sides have played to the next trick. > 1. Who won the trick in question? 2. Were there three revokes > (failures to play a club) or none (or possibly one by dummy with no > penalty)? Laws 45 and 45C4a may be relevant, but I hope there's > something else I've missed. If not, Grattan, is there room in your > notebook? > list Blml at rtflb.org [1] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > [2] If we start at L45 D then after both sides had > played to the next trick: > > If hearts were trumps, the player who played the highest Heart > won the trick. > > In any other case, the club won the trick. > > So: > > there may have been a correct lead or a lead out of turn (which > was accepted) to the next trick and at least 3 of the players > had played to the trick,,,,,,,,,,,play continues. > > at the end of the hand the director rules > > who won the club/heart trick > > and > > That there is no rectification for the revokes (L64 B7). > > If I wished to give equity under L64 C the I would consider > both sides offending, perhaps removing an advantage with a split > score. No. Law 45D says "... dummy places in the played position a card ..." which means - in combination with Law 45B "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card ..." - that the club is _not_ a played card; even when it is too late to withdraw that card from the trick. Nevertheless the heart was the card played and therefore Law 44E/F says - either heart was trump --> 44E; or - heart was not trump --> 44F, the highest heart wins (won) the trick ("... highest card of the suit led."). If the TD deemes that the defenders were damaged through dummys refusal to "play" the card played / named by declarer, TD can apply Law 12 A1 to give them redress. And yes, I agree the laws could be more specific in this matter. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 21 10:53:15 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:53:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law - 45D, 64 ??? Message-ID: <003101ccbfc6$5cb94fa0$162beee0$@online.no> I am taking the liberty of forwarding this to Grattan under his program for comments and suggestions on the laws. Sorry for the duplicate submission if someone has already submitted it. (Note that the "rectification time" under Law 45D has expired.) Sven Original message from Steve Willner to: >[BLML] What now? > > I think the Laws do not explicitly cover the following: > > Declarer calls for a heart from dummy. Dummy places a club in played > position, play continues heart, heart, heart. Assume no hand is void in either > hearts or clubs. No one draws attention to the club wrongly played until > after both sides have played to the next trick. > > 1. Who won the trick in question? > > 2. Were there three revokes (failures to play a club) or none (or possibly one > by dummy with no penalty)? > > Laws 45 and 45C4a may be relevant, but I hope there's something else I've > missed. If not, Grattan, is there room in your notebook? From blml at arcor.de Wed Dec 21 12:39:33 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:39:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Comments? Problems? Yes, problems. First there is L54C. "If declarer could have seen any of dummy?s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead.". L54B is necessary to handle that; it is not uncommon that dummy comes down while the opening lead from the wrong side is faced. Then, "accepting the lead by becoming dummy" frequently would be a significant disadvantage, such as o declarer holds the strong hand, for example after 1N p 2H (transfer) p 2S all pass o declarer's card play is better than that of dummy o the LOOT attacked a suit where declarer holds a tenace, AQ(x), AJ9, KQT, whatever. Thomas > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Remove L54B -- the option to accept an opening lead, remain declarer, and > see the dummy before playing. Change L54A so it is triggered whenever > declarer exposes any card. > > > The first three options for opening lead are needed to ensure restoration > of equity. There has to be a fourth option, to accept the lead, because > players might do that without realizing the lead is out of turn. Given > that the lead can be accepted accidentally, players who notice the lead > out of turn should have the same right to accept it. > > However, it can be accepted by becoming dummy. That leaves no need for the > > choice to accept the lead, remain declarer, and see the dummy. > > Ironically, if the player doesn't realize that the lead is out of turn and > > plays just one card thinking he is declarer, the director might apply L54A > > and make him dummy. Anyway, no one does this -- if they think the lead is > proper, they think they are dummy. If you eliminated this option, then the > > exposure of any card would make declarer dummy. > > I have seen this option taken at least twice in the time I have been > directing, though I suspect it was a bad decision in both of those cases. > The fact is, this option is very rarely selected. I am sure we can find > situations where a declarer would like to choose it. But it still wouldn't > > be needed to restore equity, and declarer will be able to achieve about > the same goals by just becoming dummy. > > ADVANTAGE > The real advantage here is shortening the list of options the director has > > to tell declarer. There are way too many options. Confusion is actually > common. If I say them fast to speed things up, they have trouble > understanding. > > You would be cutting out one of the more complicated options. I think you > would be left with four options that made sense. > > It is an easy change to advertise. Directors need to know of the change, > but players do not need to know in advance. It can be easily justified: It > > was a rarely chosen option, it was not needed for purposes of equity, and > everyone thought it good to reduce the number of options to a more > manageable level. You will look good. > > DISADVANTAGES > Hard to find, except maybe tradition. I think the option is there for > logical reasons, not practical reasons. It is convenient to treat OLOOTs > like LOOTs, and LOOT has this option. Of course, the LOOT during play has > to have this option, because declarers naturally accept the lead this way; > > OLOOT is better without the option and declarers do not naturally accept > the lead this way; it's a logical difference between LOOTs and OLOOTs. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Wed Dec 21 12:43:27 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:43:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <609711558.361791.1324467807202.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills quoting John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2006] > Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of Law, > even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the Law is > frequently broken. [snip] must go back to the Law even if people think that > the Law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it > this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the Law is in force here and > > today. > > [Nige1] > A pity that so few directors seem to agree with Richard and John. For > example, has any BLMLer ever seen zero tolerance legislation enforced, even > when the offence is in the director's presence? I can remember some cases that ended up with the offender being banned for several months. But I also know a few cases where the offender should have been immediately disqualified from the tournament, and got only a small PP, or not even that. There seem to exist some TDs and AC members who are very uncomfortable with the though of coming down hard on, say, a contender in a national championship. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 21 16:18:47 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:18:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) In-Reply-To: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Nice, I had not thought of this. Thanks. I have never seen dummy come down while the OLOOT is being faced. Um, this means that if I am dummy, and I can tell that the opening lead out of turn should probably be accepted, that I should put my hand down as dummy as quickly as I can. (Or maybe there is no hurry. Is there a deadline for when dummy is allowed to accept the opening lead?) I am currently thinking it would still be better to eliminate this option. But that's because I never saw what you describe. Do people agree? Bob > Robert Frick wrote: >> Comments? Problems? > > Yes, problems. > > First there is L54C. "If declarer could have seen any of dummy?s cards > (except cards that dummy > may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he > must accept the lead.". L54B is necessary to handle that; it is not > uncommon > that dummy comes down while the opening lead from the wrong side is > faced. > > Then, "accepting the lead by becoming dummy" frequently would be > a significant disadvantage, such as > o declarer holds the strong hand, for example after 1N p 2H (transfer) p > 2S all pass > o declarer's card play is better than that of dummy > o the LOOT attacked a suit where declarer holds a tenace, AQ(x), AJ9, > KQT, whatever. > > > Thomas > > >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Remove L54B -- the option to accept an opening lead, remain declarer, >> and >> see the dummy before playing. Change L54A so it is triggered whenever >> declarer exposes any card. >> >> >> The first three options for opening lead are needed to ensure >> restoration >> of equity. There has to be a fourth option, to accept the lead, because >> players might do that without realizing the lead is out of turn. Given >> that the lead can be accepted accidentally, players who notice the lead >> out of turn should have the same right to accept it. >> >> However, it can be accepted by becoming dummy. That leaves no need for >> the >> >> choice to accept the lead, remain declarer, and see the dummy. >> >> Ironically, if the player doesn't realize that the lead is out of turn >> and >> >> plays just one card thinking he is declarer, the director might apply >> L54A >> >> and make him dummy. Anyway, no one does this -- if they think the lead >> is >> proper, they think they are dummy. If you eliminated this option, then >> the >> >> exposure of any card would make declarer dummy. >> >> I have seen this option taken at least twice in the time I have been >> directing, though I suspect it was a bad decision in both of those >> cases. >> The fact is, this option is very rarely selected. I am sure we can find >> situations where a declarer would like to choose it. But it still >> wouldn't >> >> be needed to restore equity, and declarer will be able to achieve about >> the same goals by just becoming dummy. >> >> ADVANTAGE >> The real advantage here is shortening the list of options the director >> has >> >> to tell declarer. There are way too many options. Confusion is actually >> common. If I say them fast to speed things up, they have trouble >> understanding. >> >> You would be cutting out one of the more complicated options. I think >> you >> would be left with four options that made sense. >> >> It is an easy change to advertise. Directors need to know of the change, >> but players do not need to know in advance. It can be easily justified: >> It >> >> was a rarely chosen option, it was not needed for purposes of equity, >> and >> everyone thought it good to reduce the number of options to a more >> manageable level. You will look good. >> >> DISADVANTAGES >> Hard to find, except maybe tradition. I think the option is there for >> logical reasons, not practical reasons. It is convenient to treat OLOOTs >> like LOOTs, and LOOT has this option. Of course, the LOOT during play >> has >> to have this option, because declarers naturally accept the lead this >> way; >> >> OLOOT is better without the option and declarers do not naturally accept >> the lead this way; it's a logical difference between LOOTs and OLOOTs. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- http://somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 21 16:56:56 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:56:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EF0C481.4030804@ulb.ac.be> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <142E3F465FE6459AAFB62841F40CB0A6@G3> <4EF0C481.4030804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 20/12/2011 17:10, Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Bidding has become a science over the last half century, with >> complex, elaborate, often highly artificial methods replacing simple >> methods that depended largely on seat-of-the-pants judgment. The >> ideal seems to be to make bidding as automatic as possible, with >> judgment reduced to an afterthought. >> >> I realize now that I would relish the opportunity to test my mettle >> by trying to meet the challenge presented by my own example, having >> opened 1S on that hand and, without recourse to L25A, just keeping a >> poker face and letting the auction continue. With no artificial or >> conventional bidding able to help me now, I would be forced to rely >> entirely on judgment, creativity and original thinking alone. > > AG : it would be interesting indeed, if only you weren't liable to > public chastisment for psyching, especially if you succeed (who > believes 'I pulled the wrong bid' nowadays ?) This sounds perverse, but it's true. Alain, incisive as always, has understood what I was trying to get at in my reply to Nigel: It's not really about L25A; it's about a much larger picture. If I inadvertantly pull the 1S bid card holding the example hand and then decide, for whatever reason, not to call the director, but to just keep mum and see what happens, I risk having my sense of ethics questioned. Not only does the law permit me to take a do-over, but the culture demands that I do so. The same people -- and they are the majority these days -- who want to be protected from being taken out of their comfort zone by being forced to live with their inadvertant 1S opening on that hand want just as much to be protected from being taken out of their comfort zone by my choosing to open 1S on that hand intentionally. L25A is there for them, not for me. >> But I recognize, as perhaps Nigel does not, that a majority of >> duplicate bridge players just don't see things that way. Hence the >> oongoing campaign to drive psychs from the game entirely, > > AG : sorry, but IMOBO said abhorrence of psyches is based on other > reasons : it might spoil the pleasure of other players, because > when it works there will always be a suspicion that something > happened. (I don't claim that it's right) It's not right, but there's a reason for it. The ACBL's campaign to drive psychs from the game began on the heels of a similar campaign, heavily influenced by Edgar Kaplan and The Bridge World, to rid the game of what they called "that old black magic" ("TOBM"), which worked spectacularly well to great benefit, even though it's taken almost half a century and we're not yet 100% there yet. (TOBM, like pornography, is hard to define, but, very roughly, it was essentailly a widespread disregard for and lack of enforcement of the laws analogous to what are now L73A, B1, C and D.) People actually did psych with some frequency back in those days, and there's no doubt that they often used TOBM to protect themselves from the consequences. But they also used TOBM, just as readily, to protect themselves from the consequences of their misbids, memory lapses, misunderstandings, failures of system, their partners' stupidity, and just about anything else that could go awry at the bridge table. When the anti-psych jihad began, it was justified by a drumbeat of propaganda that successfully conflated these campaigns. The official line was that TOBM was somehow inherent to and inseparable from psychs in a manner in which it was not from the myriad other "uses" to which it was put, that psyching couldn't exist without it, and that therefore anyone who psyched was acting in an ethically dubious manner. By this logic, psychers had to be cheaters, and nobody is in favor of cheating. This campaign, too, was successful, and today's game is, by comparison, nearly totally free of both TOBM and psyching. But we have essentially succeeded in eliminating TOBM when it comes to misbids, memory lapses, and all the rest of it, and there's no reason why we could not have been equally successful when it comes to psychs. Yet both TOBM and psychs were successfully conflated, deprecated, campaigned against, and driven out of the game at about the same time, so it's inevitable that they remain associated in people's minds. The propaganda was so effective that a vague disquiet remains out there today that a return to an acceptance of psyching would somehow, inevitably, lead to a retroactive failure of the campaign against TOBM. (There's an allegory out there somewhere, with TOBM as nuclear proliferation, psyching as Saddam Hussein, and Don Oakie as George W. Bush; one notes that something like 30% of the American public still believes that Saddam had the bomb in 1992.) >> the >> continued insistence on laws and regulations designed to "protect the >> field" even though TFLB explicitly rejects that notion > > AG : it might, but several rules are there for precisely this > reason - not the first time TF***LB letter contradicts its spirit. > Examples : the allowance to OBs to regulate complex conventions ; > the possibility of split scores. Indeed. We regulate complex conventions, for example, for the same reason we have L25A, because people want the laws to protect them from being taken out of their comfort zone. We wish to be left alone, free to bid by the bidding rules, lead by the opening leads table, and play by mnemonics and rules of thumb, the less originality and creative thinking required the better. >> , and the >> pervasive notion that it's somehow "unfair" to confront one's >> opponents with situations for which their lessons and bridge books >> have not prepared them. It has been suggested to me that if what I >> really want is a game of judgment, creativity and original thinking, >> perhaps I should take up poker. >> >> So I now join Nigel in his support for the elimination of L25A from >> TFLB, but anticipate that by doiing so I have switched over to the >> losing side. > > AG : are you suggesting that you're willing to put yourself into a > handicap just to make the game more interesting ? I think that many > lesser mortals don't need this. I don't see how it's a "handicap"; it's just an aspect of the game as defined by the rules, and applies equally to all. If I can't get a do-over for an insufficient bid because the law says whatever is on the bid card on the table stands, how is that more of a "handicap" than my inability to win a trick with my trump because the law says I must follow suit? I don't know whether eliminating the requirement to follow suit would make the game more, or less, "interesting", just different. > BTW, I also disagree with your statement that complex methods > diminish the need for judgment ; rather, they give i more occasions > to be used efficiently. I certainly understand and respect that disagreement. What we can agree on, I hope, is that the law shouldn't prevent us from testing which one of us is right in the heat of battle, at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 21 17:06:00 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:06:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) In-Reply-To: References: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000601ccbffa$6f7b42e0$4e71c8a0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Nice, I had not thought of this. Thanks. I have never seen dummy come > down while the OLOOT is being faced. > > > Um, this means that if I am dummy, and I can tell that the opening lead out of > turn should probably be accepted, that I should put my hand down as > dummy as quickly as I can. [snip] [Sven Pran] If dummy acts in this way he is violating Law 43A1{c} and may be subject to a law 23 ("Could have known") rectification. Declarer is the only player that may choose between options after an opening lead by the wrong defender and dummy must not take any action that can influence declarer's choice (see also Law 10C2). From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 21 19:36:44 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:36:44 -0800 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <609711558.361791.1324467807202.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <9D60E055D8BF47C18D36B5664029076E@MARVIN> From: "Thomas Dehn" > > But I also know a few cases where the offender should have been > immediately disqualified from the tournament, and got only > a small PP, or not even that. There seem to exist some TDs and > AC members who are very uncomfortable with the thought of > coming down hard on, say, a contender in a national championship. > In the ACBL, Zero Tolerance is applied per L91, not L90, no PP. The common ZT penalty of 1/4 board therefore may not be appealed. In my experience ZT penalties are vigorously applied at NABCs, but vary greatly at sectionals and regionals. At clubs they seem to be seldom if ever applied against good customers, while you dare not say anything when a good customer is an opponent. Our District president says a ZT penalty was deserved at his table when an opponent very quietly said to his partner, "You don't know how to play bridge." Private conversations are immune from ZT policy in the ACBL, and to my mind this was private enough to be exempt. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrenchj.com From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 21 21:12:44 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:12:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <8DE7439F148642B484425EF5A4A646AA@G3> References: <64CB615477204805ABBEB664251963AD@G3> <4EEB08FE.5060100@ulb.ac.be><4EEB4CFF.2000507@comcast.net> <4EEC60E9.1030307@btinternet.com><4EECB3C4.1050800@comcast.net> <000001ccbcd1$72911800$57b34800$@online.no><4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3><2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net><142E3F465FE6459AAFB62841F40CB0A6@G3> <4EF0C481.4030804@ulb.ac.be> <8DE 7439F148642B484425EF5A4A646AA@G3> Message-ID: <0B96DD45-2C01-4353-806F-DEEE7FAFCCEE@starpower.net> On Dec 20, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Alain Gottcheiner] > Are you [Eric Landau] suggesting that you're willing to put > yourself into a > handicap just to make the game more interesting ? I think that many > lesser > mortals don't need this. BTW, I also disagree with your statement that > complex methods diminish the need for judgment; rather, they give i > more > occasions to be used efficiently. > > [Nige1] > I suppose that Eric may have had a sudden rush of common-sense to > the head. > Otherwise, I fear that his whole post was intended to be sarcastic :( I can assure Nigel that I was not being at all sarcastic, although I may have been a bit hyperbolic. And I should make it clear that when I joined Nigel in his support for the elimination of L25A from TFLB, I was doing so in the somewhat head-in-the-clouds context of the theoretical discussions that take place in this forum. It is not a position I would espouse before the local board at my club. > The current laws imperfect. They are also complex. I think players > would be > happier to put up with minor inconvenience if the laws were simpler > and they > could understand most of them. Nigel and I hold diametrically opposed views on the relationship between players, TDs and the Law. But it is possible to get to the same place from different directions. We can agree that we don't like L25A. With my player hat on, I dislike L25A for the reasons I elucidated in my reply to Alain earlier. Here I give full credit to Nigel for his earier post (in which he replied to my original example), which forced me to clarify my thinking and modify my position. With my TD hat on, though, I dislike L25A even more, because it adds complexity in general, and because it forces me into situations in which I must make subjective judgments that are often difficult or delicate and inevitably subject to being second-guessed -- IOW, for precisely the reasons by which, if Nigel's worldview were correct, I should like it. But, with my TD hat on and standing before the club board, I would argue in favor of keeping it, because (again for the reasons I elucidated in my reply to Alain) whatever Nigel or I might think of it, my customers like it and want it, because they represent the majority of the players out there, because if it were done away with my table count would go down, and because the game is for them, not for me. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Dec 21 21:55:29 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:55:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? Message-ID: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> Today, RHO claimed without stating he was drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that he intended to draw them, though he said nothing about doing so. Do you let him draw trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you prohibit him leading trumps? If the latter, how do you compare the logic of "you bungled, you bought it" here with the logic of "you bungled, but maybe you didn't mean to" that seems to be embedded in Law 25a? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 21 22:40:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:40:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> Message-ID: Robert Park: >Today, RHO claimed without stating he was >drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps >outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that >he intended to draw them, though he said >nothing about doing so. Do you let him draw >trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you >prohibit him leading trumps? [snip] Richard Hills: None of the above. Faulty question / insufficient information. Firstly, after a disputed claim all play ceases. See Law 68D. Secondly, players do not make rulings. Directors make rulings. See Law 81C. Thirdly, if the intended question is how the actual Director should have ruled, then Law 70C2 - There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 2. it is +++at all likely+++ that claimer at the time of his claim was +++unaware+++ that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and Richard Hills: The indicative example explaining Law 70C2 was given by Edgar Kaplan. Suppose that declarer is in 7S, and the grand slam will make if trumps are not 5-0. Declarer draws one round of trumps, observes both defenders follow, and immediately claims but without mentioning the outstanding trumps. In that case declarer is NOT "unaware", merely careless in composing a claim statement. Lady Bracknell: To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111221/416ea29b/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Dec 21 23:49:49 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:49:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EF2628D.1020507@comcast.net> On 12/21/11 4:40 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Robert Park: > > >Today, RHO claimed without stating he was > >drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps > >outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that > >he intended to draw them, though he said > >nothing about doing so. Do you let him draw > >trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you > >prohibit him leading trumps? > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > None of the above. Faulty question / insufficient > information > > > Firstly, after a disputed claim all play ceases. See > Law 68D. > It did. What makes you think it didn't? > > > Secondly, players do not make rulings. Directors > make rulings. See Law 81C. > What player made a ruling? You seem to invent things here. > > > Thirdly, if the intended question is how the actual > Director should have ruled, then > > Law 70C2 - There Is an Outstanding Trump > > When a trump remains in one of the opponents? > hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the > opponents if: > 2. it is +++at all likely+++ that claimer at the time of his > claim was +++unaware+++ that a trump remained in > an opponent?s hand, and > > Richard Hills: > > The indicative example explaining Law 70C2 was > given by Edgar Kaplan. Suppose that declarer is in > 7S, and the grand slam will make if trumps are not > 5-0. Declarer draws one round of trumps, observes > both defenders follow, and immediately claims but > without mentioning the outstanding trumps. In that > case declarer is NOT "unaware", merely careless > in composing a claim statement. > So, how would you rule? All that happened after we called the director was that my partner pointed out that if declarer were to have played his 'good' spades, she would have won a trick with her trump. You have all the facts, so rule! FWIW,our director ruled that declarer could not add to his claim that he would have pulled trumps. So he lost a trick. -bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111221/4acf2fdb/attachment-0001.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Dec 21 23:55:27 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:55:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EF2628D.1020507@comcast.net> References: <4EF2628D.1020507@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 12/21/11 4:40 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> Robert Park: >> >> >Today, RHO claimed without stating he was >> >drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps >> >outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that >> >he intended to draw them, though he said >> >nothing about doing so. Do you let him draw >> >trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you >> >prohibit him leading trumps? >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> None of the above. Faulty question / insufficient >> information >> > >> >> Firstly, after a disputed claim all play ceases. See >> Law 68D. > > It did. What makes you think it didn't? >> >> Secondly, players do not make rulings. Directors >> make rulings. See Law 81C. > > What player made a ruling? You seem to invent things here. >> >> Thirdly, if the intended question is how the actual >> Director should have ruled, then >> >> Law 70C2 - There Is an Outstanding Trump >> >> When a trump remains in one of the opponents? >> hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the >> opponents if: >> 2. it is +++at all likely+++ that claimer at the time of his >> claim was +++unaware+++ that a trump remained in >> an opponent?s hand, and >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> The indicative example explaining Law 70C2 was >> given by Edgar Kaplan. Suppose that declarer is in >> 7S, and the grand slam will make if trumps are not >> 5-0. Declarer draws one round of trumps, observes >> both defenders follow, and immediately claims but >> without mentioning the outstanding trumps. In that >> case declarer is NOT "unaware", merely careless >> in composing a claim statement. > > So, how would you rule? All that happened after we called the director was that my partner pointed out that if declarer were to have played his 'good' spades, she would have won a trick with her trump. > > You have all the facts, so rule! > > FWIW,our director ruled that declarer could not add to his claim that he would have pulled trumps. So he lost a trick. You poorly word a situation, postulate that the reader is a player, and ask him to make a ruling, and suggest two completely illegal possible rulings, Richard calls you on it, and you say *he* is inventing things? Get real. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111221/325f1530/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Dec 22 02:19:55 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:19:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What now? In-Reply-To: <003801ccbfc3$3ae81d00$b0b85700$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4EF17518.40907@iinet.net.au> <1RdGRC-0sNphY0@fwd20.aul.t-online.de> <003801ccbfc3$3ae81d00$b0b85700$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4EF285BB.2000406@nhcc.net> [heart called from dummy, club "played," nobody calls attention in time] On 12/21/2011 4:30 AM, ton wrote: > What surprises me most is that this problem has never been discussed in > detail before as far as I know Maybe not shocking, though I confess I'm a little surprised too. Still, if nobody notices the wrong card by the next trick, how often will anybody ever notice it? Obviously this won't be a common problem! If the WBFLC does take this up, it needs to consider alternative scenarios where declarer is void in hearts (so only the defense might have revoked) or both defenders are void (so only declarer might have revoked). My personal recommendation is "Keep it simple." After writing my earlier message, it occurred to me that L67 might be pressed into service, though it isn't exactly on point. We might use B1 to deal with the card dummy failed to play and B2 to deal with the wrong card he did play. I am not asserting that this is the "right answer," just raising it for consideration. In general, I think there are other Laws that say "If x then ...," but don't explicitly say anything about "If not x...." Many of those are just fine as they stand, but I'm not sure all of them are. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 22 02:35:58 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:35:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What now? In-Reply-To: <4EF17518.40907@iinet.net.au> References: <4EF15114.4080304@nhcc.net> <4EF17518.40907@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <7E2399AE-5D65-467F-93A8-5EDA2926E222@mac.com> On Dec 21, 2011, at 12:56 AM, bill kemp wrote: > If hearts were trumps, the player who played the highest Heart won the trick. > > In any other case, the club won the trick. The club was not played to the trick (Law 45B), so it cannot have won it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111222/9c5fa534/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 05:48:51 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:48:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4EF2628D.1020507@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EF2B6B3.5090608@comcast.net> On 12/21/11 5:55 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> On 12/21/11 4:40 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> Robert Park: >>> >>> >Today, RHO claimed without stating he was >>> >drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps >>> >outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that >>> >he intended to draw them, though he said >>> >nothing about doing so. Do you let him draw >>> >trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you >>> >prohibit him leading trumps? >>> [snip] >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> None of the above. Faulty question / insufficient >>> information >>> >> >>> >>> Firstly, after a disputed claim all play ceases. See >>> Law 68D. >>> >> >> It did. What makes you think it didn't? >>> >>> >>> Secondly, players do not make rulings. Directors >>> make rulings. See Law 81C. >>> >> >> What player made a ruling? You seem to invent things here. >>> >>> >>> Thirdly, if the intended question is how the actual >>> Director should have ruled, then >>> >>> Law 70C2 - There Is an Outstanding Trump >>> >>> When a trump remains in one of the opponents? >>> hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the >>> opponents if: >>> 2. it is +++at all likely+++ that claimer at the time of his >>> claim was +++unaware+++ that a trump remained in >>> an opponent?s hand, and >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> The indicative example explaining Law 70C2 was >>> given by Edgar Kaplan. Suppose that declarer is in >>> 7S, and the grand slam will make if trumps are not >>> 5-0. Declarer draws one round of trumps, observes >>> both defenders follow, and immediately claims but >>> without mentioning the outstanding trumps. In that >>> case declarer is NOT "unaware", merely careless >>> in composing a claim statement. >>> >> >> So, how would you rule? All that happened after we called the >> director was that my partner pointed out that if declarer were to >> have played his 'good' spades, she would have won a trick with her trump. >> >> You have all the facts, so rule! >> >> FWIW,our director ruled that declarer could not add to his claim that >> he would have pulled trumps. So he lost a trick. > > You poorly word a situation, postulate that the reader is a player, > and ask him to make a ruling, and suggest two completely illegal > possible rulings, Richard calls you on it, and you say *he* is > inventing things? Get real. > OK, I see what you are saying. I was thinking of the mental play one might picture when adjudicating the claim. I worded my example poorly. Sorry 'bout that. So, we were in a situation where declarer would have won all remaining tricks when claiming, had he said he would draw 2 rounds of trumps before running his side suit. He did not make that statement. I am still interested in how one should rule, and why. The ruling we encountered here, and one that I have generally encountered elsewhere, is that the mental analysis of his claim must not presume trumps would be drawn...hence defenders get a trump trick via a ruff in this case. So my first question is, was our director correct in his ruling here? I was initially of the opinion that declarer's claim should be allowed, but after reading the relevant laws, I am not so sure. The second question was: If so, how does the logic of the situation compare or contrast with the logic associated with Law 25a, were forgiveness is sometimes or often granted for a mental error. If one situation is unforgiving, why not the other? --bp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111222/07f3a205/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 22 06:51:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:51:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There was a young man of Peru Whose limericks stopped at line two There was a young man of Verdun Robert Park, initial post: >>>>Today, RHO claimed without stating he was >>>>drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps >>>>outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) >>>>that he intended to draw them, though he said >>>>nothing about doing so. [snip] Richard Hills, initial response: [snip] >>>The indicative example explaining Law 70C2 >>>was given by Edgar Kaplan. Suppose that >>>declarer is in 7S, and the grand slam will make >>>if trumps are not 5-0. Declarer draws one round >>>of trumps, observes both defenders follow, and >>>immediately claims but without mentioning the >>>outstanding trumps. In that case declarer is NOT >>>"unaware", merely careless in composing a >>>claim statement. Robert Park, second post: [snip] >>So, how would you rule? All that happened after >>we called the director was that my partner >>pointed out that if declarer were to have played >>his 'good' spades, she would have won a trick >>with her trump. >> >>You have all the facts, so rule! >> >>FWIW,our director ruled that declarer could not >>add to his claim that he would have pulled >>trumps. So he lost a trick. Richard Hills, current quibble: I do not have all the facts, so I do not rule. Edgar Kaplan provided a context for allowing a careless claim -- i.e. the careless claimer claiming immediately after one round of trumps demonstrated that the grand slam was cold. But Robert Park has not provided sufficient detail about the context of the disputed claim at his table. It would be helpful if Robert could provide the complete deal and the play of the cards up to the moment of the claim. I do observe that Robert stated, "it seemed apparent (to me) that he intended to draw them", which to me suggests there is a prima facie case that: (a) the Director was correctly aware that claim statements cannot be enhanced, but (b) there was a Director's Error due to the Director being unaware of the implications of Law 70A, "...the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to +++both+++ sides, but any +++doubtful+++ point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer...". If there is not any +++reasonable+++ (1) doubt that Robert's RHO would have drawn trumps, then that claim by Robert's RHO should be allowed. Robert Park, third post: [snip] >If one situation is unforgiving, why not the other? Richard Hills, current quibble: No, the overall philosophy of The Fabulous Law Book is to forgive (i.e. equity) as much as possible, with the proviso that the non-offending side (or non- claiming side) are not damaged. A secondary philosophy is to get as many normal bridge results as possible, as is demonstrated not only by Law 25A, but also by Law 13A - Director Deems Normal Play When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an incorrect hand has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call. At the end of play the Director may award an adjusted score. Merry Christmas, Richard Hills (1) In an earlier discussion Grattan Endicott gave a rule of thumb that the border between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" doubt should be set at 18%. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111222/e1dda1d7/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Dec 22 10:18:10 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:18:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) In-Reply-To: References: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <93945890.405485.1324545490466.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > Nice, I had not thought of this. Thanks. I have never seen dummy come down > while the OLOOT is being faced. Such things happen quite frequently when playing with screens. Two dummies, too. > Um, this means that if I am dummy, and I can tell that the opening lead > out of turn should probably be accepted, that I should put my hand down as > dummy as quickly as I can. Of course not. Thomas > (Or maybe there is no hurry. Is there a deadline for when dummy is allowed > to accept the opening lead?) > > I am currently thinking it would still be better to eliminate this option. > But that's because I never saw what you describe. Do people agree? > > Bob > > > > > Robert Frick wrote: > >> Comments? Problems? > > > > Yes, problems. > > > > First there is L54C. "If declarer could have seen any of dummy?s cards > > (except cards that dummy > > may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he > > must accept the lead.". L54B is necessary to handle that; it is not > > uncommon > > that dummy comes down while the opening lead from the wrong side is > > faced. > > > > Then, "accepting the lead by becoming dummy" frequently would be > > a significant disadvantage, such as > > o declarer holds the strong hand, for example after 1N p 2H (transfer) p > > 2S all pass > > o declarer's card play is better than that of dummy > > o the LOOT attacked a suit where declarer holds a tenace, AQ(x), AJ9, > > KQT, whatever. > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> Remove L54B -- the option to accept an opening lead, remain declarer, > >> and > >> see the dummy before playing. Change L54A so it is triggered whenever > >> declarer exposes any card. > >> > >> > >> The first three options for opening lead are needed to ensure > >> restoration > >> of equity. There has to be a fourth option, to accept the lead, because > >> players might do that without realizing the lead is out of turn. Given > >> that the lead can be accepted accidentally, players who notice the lead > >> out of turn should have the same right to accept it. > >> > >> However, it can be accepted by becoming dummy. That leaves no need for > >> the > >> > >> choice to accept the lead, remain declarer, and see the dummy. > >> > >> Ironically, if the player doesn't realize that the lead is out of turn > >> and > >> > >> plays just one card thinking he is declarer, the director might apply > >> L54A > >> > >> and make him dummy. Anyway, no one does this -- if they think the lead > >> is > >> proper, they think they are dummy. If you eliminated this option, then > >> the > >> > >> exposure of any card would make declarer dummy. > >> > >> I have seen this option taken at least twice in the time I have been > >> directing, though I suspect it was a bad decision in both of those > >> cases. > >> The fact is, this option is very rarely selected. I am sure we can find > >> situations where a declarer would like to choose it. But it still > >> wouldn't > >> > >> be needed to restore equity, and declarer will be able to achieve about > >> the same goals by just becoming dummy. > >> > >> ADVANTAGE > >> The real advantage here is shortening the list of options the director > >> has > >> > >> to tell declarer. There are way too many options. Confusion is actually > >> common. If I say them fast to speed things up, they have trouble > >> understanding. > >> > >> You would be cutting out one of the more complicated options. I think > >> you > >> would be left with four options that made sense. > >> > >> It is an easy change to advertise. Directors need to know of the change, > >> but players do not need to know in advance. It can be easily justified: > >> It > >> > >> was a rarely chosen option, it was not needed for purposes of equity, > >> and > >> everyone thought it good to reduce the number of options to a more > >> manageable level. You will look good. > >> > >> DISADVANTAGES > >> Hard to find, except maybe tradition. I think the option is there for > >> logical reasons, not practical reasons. It is convenient to treat OLOOTs > >> like LOOTs, and LOOT has this option. Of course, the LOOT during play > >> has > >> to have this option, because declarers naturally accept the lead this > >> way; > >> > >> OLOOT is better without the option and declarers do not naturally accept > >> the lead this way; it's a logical difference between LOOTs and OLOOTs. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > -- > http://somepsychology.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Dec 22 10:31:58 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:31:58 +0000 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9D60E055D8BF47C18D36B5664029076E@MARVIN> References: <609711558.361791.1324467807202.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <9D60E055D8BF47C18D36B5664029076E@MARVIN> Message-ID: <4EF2F90E.1050808@btinternet.com> On 21/12/2011 18:36, Marvin French wrote: > In the ACBL, Zero Tolerance is applied per L91, not L90, no PP. The common > ZT penalty of 1/4 board therefore may not be appealed. Interestingly the EBU takes a different view about appealing DPs. The White Book says: 91.3 Appealing penalties Disciplinary penalties may be appealed by any player at the table or by the captain of one of the teams present. Only in extreme circumstances would it be expected that a penalty be changed when the opposition appeal. An Appeals Committee cannot overturn the TD in the matter of issuing a disciplinary penalty, but can recommend that the TD changes it. The clause in Law 91A that refers to the TD?s decision being final and thus not appealable only applies to when the TD suspends a player for all or part of the current session. Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 22 13:33:11 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:33:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> Message-ID: <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/12/2011 19:50, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:40:43 -0500, Mike Amos > wrote: > > > >> I think the experienced TD should not have great difficulty in telling >> the difference between an genuine unintended call and a "brain fart" - >> If >> you've got one Ace and respond five Diamonds to Blackwood when your >> system response to show one Ace is Five Clubs and then you tell me this >> is a >> mispull, I shall remind you that Murdoch Junior is still saying that he >> never read his emails and no one believes him even if it is true and >> that's just unlucky. I shall ask you if you've ever played that 5D >> showed one Ace or even perhaps heard that other players did this. I >> shall explain that in such a case it is impossible to convince me that >> such a mistake was truly >> unintentional as intended by the Lawmakers. >> > What you are saying here seems to be that you reject all claims of mispull > for Blackwood responses. You don't play lie detector; you don't call them > a liar; you just say that if he is telling the truth, that's unlucky > because you are ruling against him. > > I have decided the same. I realized that far too many claims of mispull > were occurring on Blackwood sequences. > > If you look, little pieces of advice like this are scattered around. The > ACBL says that one should generally not accept a claim of mispull if the > claimed mispull came from the other slot in the bidding box. AG : a litlle bit too severe. There are some BBs where the Alert and Stop cards are on the back. A player who is unfamiliar with those might well pull Double in lieu of Stop even though they are remote from eachother. > (I am > starting to think that questions should start getting asked when the two > calls are not adjacent.) AG : same remark. Some BBs are horizontally arranged, other vertically. Pulling the card which would have been at this place using the other kind is perhaps the most frequent mispull. It's often obvious though (7C in lieu of 1NT) and that's why we should still be allowed to exercise our judgment rather than using strict rules. > > Ton provides advice for the pass of partner's conventional bid. This would > anyway be covered by the call coming from a different part of the box. AG : wrong, if the intention was to pull the Stop card (as in : 2D 18-19 balanced -> 3NT). > Is there other guidance anywhere? AG : I have some. TFLB says consider the balance of probabilities, not rule against when there is any doubt (to borow Herman's style, allow the claim of mispull from a 51% probability, not from 95%) > FINAL SOLUTION AG : would you mind using some other locution (especially in capitals) ? > (for directors who don't want to play lie detector and who > worry about letting liars prosper): Assess (1) if the error is > mechanically plausible and (2) if there is any reason to suspect brain > fart (see list above). If the answers are yes and no, accept the claim of > mispull; otherwise, reject. > AG : as said above, this doesn't conform to TFLB's demands. If the answers are Yes and Yes, you MUST judge on the balance of probabilities. Yes, it's far from easy. After all, that's what we're paid for. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 22 15:28:49 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:28:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge In-Reply-To: <9D60E055D8BF47C18D36B5664029076E@MARVIN> References: <609711558.361791.1324467807202.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <9D60E055D8BF47C18D36B5664029076E@MARVIN> Message-ID: <932721F7-969D-4F50-93B9-D60595C27451@starpower.net> On Dec 21, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Thomas Dehn" > >> But I also know a few cases where the offender should have been >> immediately disqualified from the tournament, and got only >> a small PP, or not even that. There seem to exist some TDs and >> AC members who are very uncomfortable with the thought of >> coming down hard on, say, a contender in a national championship. > > In the ACBL, Zero Tolerance is applied per L91, not L90, no PP. The > common > ZT penalty of 1/4 board therefore may not be appealed. In my > experience ZT > penalties are vigorously applied at NABCs, but vary greatly at > sectionals > and regionals. At clubs they seem to be seldom if ever applied > against good > customers, while you dare not say anything when a good customer is an > opponent. > > Our District president says a ZT penalty was deserved at his table > when an > opponent very quietly said to his partner, "You don't know how to play > bridge." Private conversations are immune from ZT policy in the > ACBL, and to > my mind this was private enough to be exempt. I don't know if there are Zero Tolerance programs elsewhere, but if so they may well be very different from the ACBL's. The ACBL's ZT program has nothing directly to do with the laws of bridge, or even with the game of bridge. It is a whole new set of rules. It does not, as many seem to think, supplement or strenghen the enforcement of any existing laws. It was introduced as "Zero Tolerance for Rudeness", and concerns itself entirely with personal behavior and deportment. Local jurisdictions effectively get to decide what exactly consititutes "rudeness" in their jurisdictions, which can include standards for things like dress, language, and personal hygiene. ZT rules apply from the time the player enters the venue until he leaves, regardless of whether he, or anyone else, is actually at the table or playing bridge. Technically speaking, ZT does not establish "conditions of play" per L80B2(i), but rather "conditions of entry" per L80B2(d). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 22 16:10:48 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:40 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Robert Park: > > >Today, RHO claimed without stating he was > >drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps > >outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that > >he intended to draw them, though he said > >nothing about doing so. Do you let him draw > >trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you > >prohibit him leading trumps? > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Law 70C2 - There Is an Outstanding Trump > > When a trump remains in one of the opponents? > hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the > opponents if: > 2. it is +++at all likely+++ that claimer at the time of his > claim was +++unaware+++ that a trump remained in > an opponent?s hand, and > > Richard Hills: > > The indicative example explaining Law 70C2 was > given by Edgar Kaplan. Suppose that declarer is in > 7S, and the grand slam will make if trumps are not > 5-0. Declarer draws one round of trumps, observes > both defenders follow, and immediately claims but > without mentioning the outstanding trumps. In that > case declarer is NOT "unaware", merely careless > in composing a claim statement. > This raises an interesting question, albeit not one directly related to Robert's problem. What if declarer claims, with no mention of outstanding trumps, before trumps have been played at all? Until I read the law, I'd have assumed that declarer "may not" (i.e. cannot be presumed to in adjudication to) take a line that involves drawing trumps if there is a less successful (but not irrational, or whatever) line involving not drawing trumps. But apparently I would have been wrong. In adjudicating a claim, we do not presume that declarer has correctly counted the played cards. But we do not force him to play his cards entirely at random, so we must presume some minimal level of rationality. We must presume he can (literally) count to 13, and we must presume that he can count the cards he can see. So if he lays down his cards before he plays to trick one, with no mention of planning to draw trumps, we must let him do so regardless, because the condition of L70C2 is not met: he cannot be unaware that there are outstanding trumps. And if he lays down his cards later in the play, with no trumps having been played and his original trump holding intact, he cannot be unaware that whatever trumps were out there when dummy came down are still out there. So the condition still is not met. That means we can construct hands where declarer has claimed with no mention of pulling trumps on which a claimer who has started pulling trumps will not be "allowed" to continue, but a claimer who has pulled no trumps at all must be allowed to do so. That seems a bit perverse. What am I missing? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 22 16:27:16 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:27:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> References: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 21, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Today, RHO claimed without stating he was drawing trumps. There were > still 3 trumps outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that he > intended to draw them, though he said nothing about doing so. Do > you let > him draw trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you prohibit him > leading trumps? > > If the latter, how do you compare the logic of "you bungled, you > bought > it" here with the logic of "you bungled, but maybe you didn't mean to" > that seems to be embedded in Law 25a? How do you compare "I pulled the wrong bid from my bidding box" with "I pulled the wrong claim from my claiming box"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 22 16:54:14 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:54:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net> <000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no> <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <326BFD59-429F-45EE-8453-501918B1835D@starpower.net> On Dec 22, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 20/12/2011 19:50, Robert Frick a ?crit : > >> If you look, little pieces of advice like this are scattered >> around. The >> ACBL says that one should generally not accept a claim of mispull >> if the >> claimed mispull came from the other slot in the bidding box. > > AG : a litlle bit too severe. There are some BBs where the Alert and > Stop cards are on the back. A player who is unfamiliar with those > might > well pull Double in lieu of Stop even though they are remote from > eachother. I was discussing this thread with my wife, and she asked me to interject a comment on her behalf. She states with absolute certainty, from personal experience, that it most definitely *is* possible to mispull a card from the "wrong" section of the bid box. She has done it. There is no issue of different styles of bid boxes. She is (perhaps a bit too) aware of the ACBL guideline and has always assumed when she does this that a L25A claim would be rejected, so she says nothing and allows the mispull to stand, so there is no question of her taking issue with any adverse ruling or anything like that. She reports that folks with average or better hand-eye coordination seem unable to understand that such genuine mispulls do happen. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu Dec 22 17:17:35 2011 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:17:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What now? Message-ID: <20111222161744.5F5D418F226DE@relay3.webreus.nl> At 10:30:51 21-12-2011, Ton Kooyman wrote: > Gentlemen you do surprise me, closing 2011 this really is a nice question > which should draw the attention of the LC. > The answer isn't clear at all. I feel sympathy for Peter's approach, the > highest heart winning the trick. > But what if that highest heart is in dummy? Could it win two tricks? And > what if dummy plays a club instead and everybody follows clubs? Nobody > winning this trick then? Or the dummy by definition, 'playing' the highest > heart? Do we have four established revokes in that case? I am happy we > added L 64C7. > What surprises me most is that this problem has never been discussed in > detail before as far as I know, goodness gracious. But the problem has been discussed in BLML of March 2005. http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/22654 The most interesting view was taken by Robert Pewcik: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.games.bridge.laws/22673 . From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 18:28:12 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:28:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EF368AC.8040107@comcast.net> On 12/22/11 10:27 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 21, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> Today, RHO claimed without stating he was drawing trumps. There were >> still 3 trumps outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that he >> intended to draw them, though he said nothing about doing so. Do >> you let >> him draw trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you prohibit him >> leading trumps? >> >> If the latter, how do you compare the logic of "you bungled, you >> bought >> it" here with the logic of "you bungled, but maybe you didn't mean to" >> that seems to be embedded in Law 25a? > How do you compare "I pulled the wrong bid from my bidding box" with > "I pulled the wrong claim from my claiming box"? > Perhaps because both stem form a temporary lack of attention to detail. --bp From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 22 18:54:55 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:54:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Controlled trials In-Reply-To: <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EECBAD8.4070408@comcast.net><000101ccbcd6$c794e930$56bebb90$@online.no><4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net><5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com><4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net><9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos><4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net><479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos><4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com><3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1><6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3><2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net><023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl><023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl><024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl><6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <231D292DBE6F411986FABD9093801D40@G3> [Alain Gottcheiner about miss-pulls] ... you MUST judge on the balance of probabilities. Yes, it's far from easy. After all, that's what we're paid for. [Nigel] Admittedly such laws enhance TD responsibility and importance. Also they frequently present the TD with intriguing and challenging rulings. Players however, have difficulty understanding them. It is frustrating to play a game with rules so sophisticated that even top law-makers and referees cannot understand their meaning or agree on rulings. For players, these rule detract from the fun of the game. Take the miss-pull rule. Admittedly, it is possible that a bidding-box miss-pull is a mechanical error but it is usually just the result of insufficient thought or care. BLML can (and probably will) enjoy an interminable discussion of the law's theoretical meaning. in practice, however, especially, at club level, directors seem to lean over backwards to award the perpetrator a second bite of the cherry. Is there a glimmer hope for the future? The existence of local regulating bodies makes a level-playing field impossible and also detracts from players' enjoyment the game. Until the WBF remedy this sorry state of affairs, however, the WBFLC should take the opportunity to profit from it. The WBFLC could ask local regulating bodies to volunteer to try out proposed rule-changes; and carefully monitor their effects. For example, were the "mechanical-error" dispensation scrapped, among the possible beneficial effects might be significantly fewer careless bidding mistakes. From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 19:09:05 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:09:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> Richard...Thank you for replying, and for pointing out the philosophies underlying the wording of the laws here. It has helped me understand better why these parts of the laws are as they are. I am not yet totally convinced, though, that this is the way it should be. When I see parts of the laws, as applied here and in the case of mispulls, being applied inconsistently by directors, I tend to conclude that those parts of the laws could benefit from simplification. You have outlined two important guiding philosophies. I suggest that another might be consistency in application...which implies, I think, less requirement for "balance of probabilities" decisions by directors and (in other cases) less need for cross-referencing various parts of the laws. Your citing of Grattan's 18% guideline addresses an important point, though I sense your tongue is a bit in your cheek, and perhaps Grattan's was too. Since I seriously doubt that any such estimates can be made consistently and with any accuracy, I suggest the the laws should minimize the need to make such attempts. I would be willing to sacrifice some emphasis on forgiveness and "normal bridge results" if simplicity and consistency of application could be achieved. Hence I find myself more than a bit sympathetic to Nigel's views, and I would urge that those involved in future rewriting of the laws have a bit more empathy for desires of players for clarity and consistency in law application. --Bob Park On 12/22/11 12:51 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > There was a young man of Peru > Whose limericks stopped at line two > > There was a young man of Verdun > > Robert Park, initial post: > > >>>>Today, RHO claimed without stating he was > >>>>drawing trumps. There were still 3 trumps > >>>>outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) > >>>>that he intended to draw them, though he said > >>>>nothing about doing so. > [snip] > > Richard Hills, initial response: > > [snip] > >>>The indicative example explaining Law 70C2 > >>>was given by Edgar Kaplan. Suppose that > >>>declarer is in 7S, and the grand slam will make > >>>if trumps are not 5-0. Declarer draws one round > >>>of trumps, observes both defenders follow, and > >>>immediately claims but without mentioning the > >>>outstanding trumps. In that case declarer is NOT > >>>"unaware", merely careless in composing a > >>>claim statement. > > Robert Park, second post: > > [snip] > >>So, how would you rule? All that happened after > >>we called the director was that my partner > >>pointed out that if declarer were to have played > >>his 'good' spades, she would have won a trick > >>with her trump. > >> > >>You have all the facts, so rule! > >> > >>FWIW,our director ruled that declarer could not > >>add to his claim that he would have pulled > >>trumps. So he lost a trick. > > Richard Hills, current quibble: > > I do not have all the facts, so I do not rule. > > Edgar Kaplan provided a context for allowing a > careless claim -- i.e. the careless claimer claiming > immediately after one round of trumps demonstrated > that the grand slam was cold. > > But Robert Park has not provided sufficient detail > about the context of the disputed claim at his table. > It would be helpful if Robert could provide the > complete deal and the play of the cards up to the > moment of the claim. > > I do observe that Robert stated, "it seemed apparent > (to me) that he intended to draw them", which to me > suggests there is a /prima facie/ case that: > > (a) the Director was correctly aware that claim > statements cannot be enhanced, but > > (b) there was a Director's Error due to the Director > being unaware of the implications of Law 70A, > "...the Director adjudicates the result of the board as > equitably as possible to +++both+++ sides, but any > +++doubtful+++ point as to a claim shall be resolved > against the claimer...". > > If there is not any +++reasonable+++ (1) doubt that > Robert's RHO would have drawn trumps, then that > claim by Robert's RHO should be allowed. > > Robert Park, third post: > > [snip] > >If one situation is unforgiving, why not the other? > > Richard Hills, current quibble: > > No, the overall philosophy of The Fabulous Law > Book is to forgive (i.e. equity) as much as possible, > with the proviso that the non-offending side (or non- > claiming side) are not damaged. > > A secondary philosophy is to get as many normal > bridge results as possible, as is demonstrated not > only by Law 25A, but also by > > Law 13A - Director Deems Normal Play > > When the Director determines that one or more > hands of the board contained an incorrect number > of cards (but see Law 14) and a player with an > incorrect hand has made a call, then when the > Director deems that the deal can be corrected and > played the deal may be so played with no change > of call. At the end of play the Director may award an > adjusted score. > > Merry Christmas, > > Richard Hills > > (1) In an earlier discussion Grattan Endicott gave a > rule of thumb that the border between "reasonable" > and "unreasonable" doubt should be set at 18%. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111222/5b82f4d2/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 22 19:55:01 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:55:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: <4EF368AC.8040107@comcast.net> References: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> <4EF368AC.8040107@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 12/22/11 10:27 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Dec 21, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> Today, RHO claimed without stating he was drawing trumps. >>> There were >>> still 3 trumps outstanding, and it seemed apparent (to me) that he >>> intended to draw them, though he said nothing about doing so. Do >>> you let >>> him draw trumps (perhaps for just one round), or do you prohibit him >>> leading trumps? >>> >>> If the latter, how do you compare the logic of "you bungled, you >>> bought >>> it" here with the logic of "you bungled, but maybe you didn't >>> mean to" >>> that seems to be embedded in Law 25a? >> >> How do you compare "I pulled the wrong bid from my bidding box" with >> "I pulled the wrong claim from my claiming box"? > > Perhaps because both stem form a temporary lack of attention to > detail. Then they compare as we would expect. A "temporary lack of attention to detail" is patently a "slip of the mind" rather than a purely mechanical error, so L25A does not apply (one's "attention" cannot, by definition, "refocus" on a previously overlooked detail "without [(]pause for[)] thought"). There is no provision of any law that permits a do-over in any case in which the action in question was the result of a temporary lack of attention to detail. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 20:34:26 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:34:26 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> <4EF368AC.8040107@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >?There is no provision of any law that > permits a do-over in any case in which the action in question was the > result of a temporary lack of attention to detail. > I would think that placing an unintended bidding card on the table is generally caused by a temporary lack of attention to detail. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 22 21:27:28 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:27:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> References: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> On Dec 22, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Richard...Thank you for replying, and for pointing out the > philosophies underlying the wording of the laws here. It has helped > me understand better why these parts of the laws are as they are. I > am not yet totally convinced, though, that this is the way it > should be. > > When I see parts of the laws, as applied here and in the case of > mispulls, being applied inconsistently by directors, I tend to > conclude that those parts of the laws could benefit from > simplification. You have outlined two important guiding > philosophies. I suggest that another might be consistency in > application...which implies, I think, less requirement for "balance > of probabilities" decisions by directors and (in other cases) less > need for cross-referencing various parts of the laws. Whatever it is that Bob (either one; IIRC it was Bob Frick who started this discussion) might think the mispull laws might benefit from, it *isn't* simplification. If he is concerned with, for example, L25A being inconsistently applied by different directors, then what he wants are more objective rules, which is an entirely different kettle of fish from simpler ones. We can all agree that it would be a wonderful world if all our laws were simple and objective, but in real life lawmakers generally find these to be inversely correlated, and must decide how much of one to sacrifice to achieve the other. IOW, if you really want the laws to be applied with near- universal consistency, you'd better be prepared to make them a lot more complex. L25A is a perfect example. It says that if your call was unintended you can take a do-over, otherwise you can't. That's about as simple as a law gets. Indeed, there are only two ways we could possibly make it simpler, either by allowing do-overs on demand or by forbidding do-overs altogether. But what Bob is seeking are objective rules or guidelines such as one which has been frequently suggested: you can't get a L25A do-over if you pulled a card from a separate part of the bidding box than the card you claim to have been attempting to pull. That sounds simple and objective, but it's not simple at all. You need to define "part". You need to specify how far apart and/or different in shape two "parts" need to be to make them "separate". You're going to need special guidelines for different kinds of bidding boxes. And you're probably going to need an additional rule that provides exceptions to the baseline rule for players who can prove themselves habituated to using a different style of box. Some have even suggested prohibiting a L25A correction if the two cards in question are, to put it (ahem) simply, "not close together". But such a rule without details will be even more subjective than "unintended", while one that provides objective guidelines will need to specify box, card, tab and gap sizes to the millimeter, and it's not even clear which of these are being advocated in such suggestions. You can advocate for simplifying the rules or you can advocate for making them less subjective, but you can't pretend that they're the same thing, or that you can accomplish one by achieving the other, unless you live in the sort of fantasy world where rules are only complicated or subjective because directors are determined to make them so for selfish reasons of their own. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Thu Dec 22 21:56:26 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:56:26 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> References: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> Message-ID: [Eric landau] Whatever it is that Bob (either one; IIRC it was Bob Frick who started this discussion) might think the mispull laws might benefit from, it *isn't* simplification. If he is concerned with, for example, L25A being inconsistently applied by different directors, then what he wants are more objective rules, which is an entirely different kettle of fish from simpler ones. We can all agree that it would be a wonderful world if all our laws were simple and objective, but in real life lawmakers generally find these to be inversely correlated, and must decide how much of one to sacrifice to achieve the other. IOW, if you really want the laws to be applied with near- universal consistency, you'd better be prepared to make them a lot more complex. L25A is a perfect example. It says that if your call was unintended you can take a do-over, otherwise you can't. That's about as simple as a law gets. Indeed, there are only two ways we could possibly make it simpler, either by allowing do-overs on demand or by forbidding do-overs altogether. [Nige1] Chopping unnecessary bits of law, especially if they are misunderstood and inconsistently applied does make rules simpler and better (from a player point-of-view) [Eric landau] [snip] You can advocate for simplifying the rules or you can advocate for making them less subjective, but you can't pretend that they're the same thing, or that you can accomplish one by achieving the other, unless you live in the sort of fantasy world where rules are only complicated or subjective because directors are determined to make them so for selfish reasons of their own. [Nige1] No pretence is necessary. In the case of bridge-law, the two objectives often coincide. Simple laws are usually easier to understand and easier to enforce consistently. Admittedly, most law-makers and directors are players, so there is considerable overlap between their aspirations. Nevertheless, IMO, the groups operate from subtly different agenda. For example, members of local regulating-authorities have a different view on their contribution to the game -- from players in general -- and from visiting competitors, in particular. From blackshoe at mac.com Thu Dec 22 22:03:39 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:03:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> References: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > You can advocate for simplifying the rules or you can advocate for > making them less subjective, but you can't pretend that they're the > same thing, or that you can accomplish one by achieving the other, > unless you live in the sort of fantasy world where rules are only > complicated or subjective because directors are determined to make > them so for selfish reasons of their own. Perhaps what is needed is not a change in the rules, but better training for directors, particularly at club level. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 22 22:24:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:24:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >In adjudicating a claim, we do not presume that declarer >has correctly counted the played cards. But we do not >force him to play his cards entirely at random, so we >must presume some minimal level of rationality. We >must presume he can (literally) count to 13, and >we must presume that he can count the cards he can >see. [snip] Richard Hills: Incorrect. The whole point of Law 70C is that declarer often lacks some minimal level of rationality, and that she often believes that the pack contains only 12 trumps. Eric Landau: [snip] >but a claimer who has pulled no trumps at all must be >allowed to do so. > >That seems a bit perverse. What am I missing? Richard Hills: What I once missed declaring a cold 4Sx contract was that dummy and I had nine trumps between us, not merely eight. Because of my false belief that we had eight trumps I took a rational line of play (which would have been irrational for a more observant declarer) and scored -200. An early Christmas gift for the opponents. Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111222/55f76f3f/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 22:26:32 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:26:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> References: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4EF3A088.4090006@comcast.net> On 12/22/11 3:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 22, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> Richard...Thank you for replying, and for pointing out the >> philosophies underlying the wording of the laws here. It has helped >> me understand better why these parts of the laws are as they are. I >> am not yet totally convinced, though, that this is the way it >> should be. >> >> When I see parts of the laws, as applied here and in the case of >> mispulls, being applied inconsistently by directors, I tend to >> conclude that those parts of the laws could benefit from >> simplification. You have outlined two important guiding >> philosophies. I suggest that another might be consistency in >> application...which implies, I think, less requirement for "balance >> of probabilities" decisions by directors and (in other cases) less >> need for cross-referencing various parts of the laws. > Whatever it is that Bob (either one; IIRC it was Bob Frick who > started this discussion) might think the mispull laws might benefit > from, it *isn't* simplification. If he is concerned with, for > example, L25A being inconsistently applied by different directors, > then what he wants are more objective rules, which is an entirely > different kettle of fish from simpler ones. We can all agree that it > would be a wonderful world if all our laws were simple and objective, > but in real life lawmakers generally find these to be inversely > correlated, and must decide how much of one to sacrifice to achieve > the other. IOW, if you really want the laws to be applied with near- > universal consistency, you'd better be prepared to make them a lot > more complex. > > L25A is a perfect example. It says that if your call was unintended > you can take a do-over, otherwise you can't. That's about as simple > as a law gets. Indeed, there are only two ways we could possibly > make it simpler, either by allowing do-overs on demand or by > forbidding do-overs altogether. > > But what Bob is seeking are objective rules or guidelines such as one > which has been frequently suggested: you can't get a L25A do-over if > you pulled a card from a separate part of the bidding box than the > card you claim to have been attempting to pull. That sounds simple > and objective, but it's not simple at all. You need to define > "part". You need to specify how far apart and/or different in shape > two "parts" need to be to make them "separate". You're going to need > special guidelines for different kinds of bidding boxes. And you're > probably going to need an additional rule that provides exceptions to > the baseline rule for players who can prove themselves habituated to > using a different style of box. > > Some have even suggested prohibiting a L25A correction if the two > cards in question are, to put it (ahem) simply, "not close > together". But such a rule without details will be even more > subjective than "unintended", while one that provides objective > guidelines will need to specify box, card, tab and gap sizes to the > millimeter, and it's not even clear which of these are being > advocated in such suggestions. > > You can advocate for simplifying the rules or you can advocate for > making them less subjective, but you can't pretend that they're the > same thing, or that you can accomplish one by achieving the other, > unless you live in the sort of fantasy world where rules are only > complicated or subjective because directors are determined to make > them so for selfish reasons of their own. > > Well....If I ever get a chance to vote, I'm voting for no do-overs for mispulls. That seems like a worthwhile simplification to me. I recognize that there would be an uptick in insufficient bid rulings, as well as an increase in instances where an inadvertent "oops!" sends unauthorized information...as when mis-replying to RKCB or other artificial inquiries or relays, but these seem small prices to pay. There would be partial self-correction (damping) at work, though, as people begin to realize that they really have to take responsibility for their actions. I don't see how the results of such a change would be any less fair than present law here. It might even add a bit of spice (in the way of inadvertent psychs), if the mispuller can keep a poker face. I do get the sense that most members of this mailing list (and of the ACBL) might prefer that the hoi polloi of bridge not have opportunity to vote. I guess my views represent one of the reasons why. --Bob Park From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Dec 22 22:30:56 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:30:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4EF3A190.4090103@comcast.net> On 12/22/11 4:03 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> You can advocate for simplifying the rules or you can advocate for >> making them less subjective, but you can't pretend that they're the >> same thing, or that you can accomplish one by achieving the other, >> unless you live in the sort of fantasy world where rules are only >> complicated or subjective because directors are determined to make >> them so for selfish reasons of their own. > Perhaps what is needed is not a change in the rules, but better training for directors, particularly at club level. > _______________________________________________ My preference would be to do away with the need for better director traning...wherever possible. --Bob Park From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 22 22:51:50 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:51:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law indicative examples [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Perhaps what is needed is not a change in the rules, >but better training for directors, particularly at club level. Richard Hills Perhaps what is needed is not a change in the rules, neither better training for Directors, but rather more indicative examples in the Laws, which would permit Directors to train themselves. The only indicative example in the 2007 Lawbook is Law 75, which clearly demonstrates the interaction between Law 40 and Law 73C. The EBU White Book provides further useful indicative examples (incorporating some of Ton Kooijman's semi-official examples), so I recommend to the Drafting Committee that it cannibalise particularly useful examples from the White Book for the 2017 Laws. Merry Christmas, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111222/65d62e7e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 23 00:56:26 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:56:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) In-Reply-To: <93945890.405485.1324545490466.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <93945890.405485.1324545490466.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: The event you describe as "common" (opening lead out of turn combined with dummy starting to display his hand) still seems too bizarre that I would expect anyone on blml to have seen it. Tell me what I am missing? 1. The player puts down his hand as dummy, even though RHO has not yet led. This has to be at least extremely rare here. Once a month? Meanwhile, on the other side of the screen, a player has led face up out of turn. I rate that as 1/240 here, leaving me with it happening every 20 years. Then the players raise the screen and discover the problem. 2. Or, LHO has made an apparent opening lead, and RHO (on the same side of the screen) puts down his hand as dummy. If this was a proper lead, it would mean declarer is explosing his hand. That is very rare here, and when you again factor in the that lead is faced up out of turn, you get an extremely improbably event. 3. Or, your screenmate puts down his hand as dummy, then you decide to make a lead. Note that if your screenmate really is dummy, your partner has perhaps led and you don't know what suit was led or what declarer would play. Again, extremely rare. 4. You mention two simultanous leads with both players putting down their hands as dummy. But that does not seem relevant to the discussion. I can believe this is common, because it is a combination of events I see at me club -- a lead of out turn and declarer not realizing that it is a lead out of turn and starting to put down his hand as dummy. Bob. > Robert Frick >> Nice, I had not thought of this. Thanks. I have never seen dummy come >> down >> while the OLOOT is being faced. > > Such things happen quite frequently when playing with screens. > Two dummies, too. > > >> Um, this means that if I am dummy, and I can tell that the opening lead >> out of turn should probably be accepted, that I should put my hand down >> as >> dummy as quickly as I can. > > Of course not. > > Thomas > >> (Or maybe there is no hurry. Is there a deadline for when dummy is >> allowed >> to accept the opening lead?) >> >> I am currently thinking it would still be better to eliminate this >> option. >> But that's because I never saw what you describe. Do people agree? >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> Comments? Problems? >> > >> > Yes, problems. >> > >> > First there is L54C. "If declarer could have seen any of dummy?s cards >> > (except cards that dummy >> > may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), >> he >> > must accept the lead.". L54B is necessary to handle that; it is not >> > uncommon >> > that dummy comes down while the opening lead from the wrong side is >> > faced. >> > >> > Then, "accepting the lead by becoming dummy" frequently would be >> > a significant disadvantage, such as >> > o declarer holds the strong hand, for example after 1N p 2H >> (transfer) p >> > 2S all pass >> > o declarer's card play is better than that of dummy >> > o the LOOT attacked a suit where declarer holds a tenace, AQ(x), AJ9, >> > KQT, whatever. >> > >> > >> > Thomas >> > >> > >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Remove L54B -- the option to accept an opening lead, remain declarer, >> >> and >> >> see the dummy before playing. Change L54A so it is triggered whenever >> >> declarer exposes any card. >> >> >> >> >> >> The first three options for opening lead are needed to ensure >> >> restoration >> >> of equity. There has to be a fourth option, to accept the lead, >> because >> >> players might do that without realizing the lead is out of turn. >> Given >> >> that the lead can be accepted accidentally, players who notice the >> lead >> >> out of turn should have the same right to accept it. >> >> >> >> However, it can be accepted by becoming dummy. That leaves no need >> for >> >> the >> >> >> >> choice to accept the lead, remain declarer, and see the dummy. >> >> >> >> Ironically, if the player doesn't realize that the lead is out of >> turn >> >> and >> >> >> >> plays just one card thinking he is declarer, the director might apply >> >> L54A >> >> >> >> and make him dummy. Anyway, no one does this -- if they think the >> lead >> >> is >> >> proper, they think they are dummy. If you eliminated this option, >> then >> >> the >> >> >> >> exposure of any card would make declarer dummy. >> >> >> >> I have seen this option taken at least twice in the time I have been >> >> directing, though I suspect it was a bad decision in both of those >> >> cases. >> >> The fact is, this option is very rarely selected. I am sure we can >> find >> >> situations where a declarer would like to choose it. But it still >> >> wouldn't >> >> >> >> be needed to restore equity, and declarer will be able to achieve >> about >> >> the same goals by just becoming dummy. >> >> >> >> ADVANTAGE >> >> The real advantage here is shortening the list of options the >> director >> >> has >> >> >> >> to tell declarer. There are way too many options. Confusion is >> actually >> >> common. If I say them fast to speed things up, they have trouble >> >> understanding. >> >> >> >> You would be cutting out one of the more complicated options. I think >> >> you >> >> would be left with four options that made sense. >> >> >> >> It is an easy change to advertise. Directors need to know of the >> change, >> >> but players do not need to know in advance. It can be easily >> justified: >> >> It >> >> >> >> was a rarely chosen option, it was not needed for purposes of equity, >> >> and >> >> everyone thought it good to reduce the number of options to a more >> >> manageable level. You will look good. >> >> >> >> DISADVANTAGES >> >> Hard to find, except maybe tradition. I think the option is there for >> >> logical reasons, not practical reasons. It is convenient to treat >> OLOOTs >> >> like LOOTs, and LOOT has this option. Of course, the LOOT during play >> >> has >> >> to have this option, because declarers naturally accept the lead this >> >> way; >> >> >> >> OLOOT is better without the option and declarers do not naturally >> accept >> >> the lead this way; it's a logical difference between LOOTs and >> OLOOTs. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> http://somepsychology.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 23 02:26:27 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:26:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Controlled trials [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <231D292DBE6F411986FABD9093801D40@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] The WBFLC could ask local regulating bodies to volunteer to try out proposed rule-changes; and carefully monitor their effects. [snip] Richard Hills: In the 1950s very few players attended ACBL weekend teams events, because the method of scoring was point- a-board (board-a-match). In the 1960s Jeff Rubens and some other Young Turks noticed the explosion of interest in chess tournaments caused by its Swiss system, so convinced the ACBL to introduce grass- roots imp teams tournaments with a Swiss draw. The ABF carefully monitored the effects of Swiss draws, and extended them to multi-day tournaments with very long matches (e.g. the forthcoming South West Pacific Teams will consist of 12 x 20-board matches over four days) received with great popularity from hoi polloi. Robert Park: [snip] Hence I find myself more than a bit sympathetic to Nigel's views, and I would urge that those involved in future rewriting of the laws have a bit more empathy for desires of players for clarity and consistency in law application. Richard Hills: Nigel's anecdotal Gallup polls of what hoi polloi want differ from my anecdotal Gallup polls of what hoi polloi want. In my experience, justice with mercy is the overwhelming desire, letting the punishment fit the crime. The Mikado: Yes. Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. Something of that sort. I think boiling oil occurs in it, but I'm not sure. I know it's something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don't fret -- I'm not a bit angry. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111223/dc9d54c0/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Dec 23 07:43:34 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 06:43:34 -0000 Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) References: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net><93945890.405485.1324545490466.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <713D6799815C45FB802E43B0C197BD64@changeme1> Common enough. I've had it at all levels. Also 2 'dummies', and even a member of the declaring side leading followed by a 'defender' facing 'dummy'. > The event you describe as "common" (opening lead out of turn combined with > dummy starting to display his hand) still seems too bizarre that I would > expect anyone on blml to have seen it. Tell me what I am missing? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 23 15:39:30 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:39:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> <4EF368AC.8040107@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> There is no provision of any law that >> permits a do-over in any case in which the action in question was the >> result of a temporary lack of attention to detail. > > I would think that placing an unintended bidding card on the table is > generally caused by a temporary lack of attention to detail. That's why it's so difficult for folks to grasp the concept of "unintended" as it is used in L25. We consensually interpret "unintended" to refer to a "purely mechanical" error". That means an error made in taking a "purely mechanical" action, which by definition is an action which does not require "attention" (when you walk, for example, you are not "paying attention" to the movement of your legs). Mispulls subject to L25A do not result from a lack of attention to detail, but from a failure of hand-eye coordination (you can totally focus 100% of your attention on that bullseye, for example, and still miss it with that dart). One solution to the problem is to make it so that *all* mispulls, including the unintended, are indeed caused by a temporary lack of attention. That's easy: write a law that says that when a player takes a card from his bidding box, he *must* examine the face of the card to verify that it is the one he intended to select prior to placing it on the table. Now a player can still make a purely mechanical error at the instant he pulls the card, but he cannot put the card he pullled on the table uncorrected without some "lack of attention" or other "slip of the mind", for which (as now) he gets no opportunity for correction. L25A then becomes a no-op and disappears. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 23 15:57:40 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:57:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: <4EF247C1.9070702@comcast.net> <4EF368AC.8040107@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4EF496E4.8070700@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/12/2011 15:39, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 22, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> There is no provision of any law that >>> permits a do-over in any case in which the action in question was the >>> result of a temporary lack of attention to detail. >> I would think that placing an unintended bidding card on the table is >> generally caused by a temporary lack of attention to detail. > That's why it's so difficult for folks to grasp the concept of > "unintended" as it is used in L25. We consensually interpret > "unintended" to refer to a "purely mechanical" error". That means an > error made in taking a "purely mechanical" action, which by > definition is an action which does not require "attention" (when you > walk, for example, you are not "paying attention" to the movement of > your legs). Mispulls subject to L25A do not result from a lack of > attention to detail, but from a failure of hand-eye coordination (you > can totally focus 100% of your attention on that bullseye, for > example, and still miss it with that dart). > > One solution to the problem is to make it so that *all* mispulls, > including the unintended, are indeed caused by a temporary lack of > attention. That's easy: write a law that says that when a player > takes a card from his bidding box, he *must* examine the face of the > card to verify that it is the one he intended to select prior to > placing it on the table. AG : perfect, except for two things : the time it takes to be absolutely sure (ca. 3 seconds times the number of calls = on average 1 minute per deal), and the difficulty in making a difference between quick-rethought changes (disallowed) and corrections of mechanical errors (allowed if you see it before the card hits the table). IMHO this would be more difficult than it is now (no help from tempo or facial expression). > Now a player can still make a purely > mechanical error at the instant he pulls the card, but he cannot put > the card he pullled on the table uncorrected without some "lack of > attention" or other "slip of the mind", for which (as now) he gets no > opportunity for correction. L25A then becomes a no-op and disappears. AG : and more problems in interpretation of intent appear. Not a good trade. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 23 16:07:59 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:07:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: <4EF37241.3070106@comcast.net> <6580B123-8B0E-4256-81D0-902419FAA81E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Dec 22, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> You can advocate for simplifying the rules or you can advocate for >> making them less subjective, but you can't pretend that they're the >> same thing, or that you can accomplish one by achieving the other, >> unless you live in the sort of fantasy world where rules are only >> complicated or subjective because directors are determined to make >> them so for selfish reasons of their own. > > Perhaps what is needed is not a change in the rules, but better > training for directors, particularly at club level. Unarguably so. But what do we mean by "better training"? Certainly, we would expect it to result in more consistency, with directors being trained to the same principles and interpretations throughout the jurisdiction in which they practice. That requires teaching and/ or training materials that set forth those principles and interpretations in sufficient detail to bring about the desired consistency in their application. In other words, more, and more complicated rules. What you teach directors may not have the legal status of laws or regulations, but they're still "rules", and you still have to write them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 23 16:34:30 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:34:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2769CD88-1B77-4546-A2FC-6A89EBD62767@starpower.net> On Dec 22, 2011, at 4:24 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >In adjudicating a claim, we do not presume that declarer > >has correctly counted the played cards. But we do not > >force him to play his cards entirely at random, so we > >must presume some minimal level of rationality. We > >must presume he can (literally) count to 13, and > >we must presume that he can count the cards he can > >see. > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. > > The whole point of Law 70C is that declarer often lacks > some minimal level of rationality, and that she often > believes that the pack contains only 12 trumps. > I disagree. The point of L70C is that declarer often lacks some minimal level of attention to the played cards. As when with four trumps outstanding, she plays two top trumps, drawing three of the opponents', and "often" believes there are no more left. > Eric Landau: > > [snip] > >but a claimer who has pulled no trumps at all must be > >allowed to do so. > > > >That seems a bit perverse. What am I missing? > > Richard Hills: > > What I once missed declaring a cold 4Sx contract was > that dummy and I had nine trumps between us, not > merely eight. Because of my false belief that we had > eight trumps I took a rational line of play (which would > have been irrational for a more observant declarer) and > scored -200. An early Christmas gift for the opponents. > So what would have happened had you realized that you had nine trumps between you and the contract was cold, so you claimed, stating that you would draw trumps? Would you expect your opponents to call the director, because you might, left to your own devices, have misplayed the hand thinking you only had eight trumps? Would you expect the director to take them seriously? Was your claim statement faulty because you failed to mention that you know there are 13 trumps in the deck? If we allow rulings that account for players who "believe that the pack contains only 12 trumps", how do we deal with players who might believe that the pack contains six suits, or believe that the jass is always the highest trump? I fail to understand how Richard's anecdote is supposed to be in any way relevant to what we're talking about. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 23 16:42:15 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:42:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? In-Reply-To: <2769CD88-1B77-4546-A2FC-6A89EBD62767@starpower.net> References: <2769CD88-1B77-4546-A2FC-6A89EBD62767@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4EF4A157.6040406@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/12/2011 16:34, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 22, 2011, at 4:24 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Eric Landau: >> >> [snip] >>> In adjudicating a claim, we do not presume that declarer >>> has correctly counted the played cards. But we do not >>> force him to play his cards entirely at random, so we >>> must presume some minimal level of rationality. We >>> must presume he can (literally) count to 13, and >>> we must presume that he can count the cards he can >>> see. >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Incorrect. >> >> The whole point of Law 70C is that declarer often lacks >> some minimal level of rationality, and that she often >> believes that the pack contains only 12 trumps. >> > I disagree. The point of L70C is that declarer often lacks some > minimal level of attention to the played cards. As when with four > trumps outstanding, she plays two top trumps, drawing three of the > opponents', and "often" believes there are no more left. >> Eric Landau: >> >> [snip] >>> but a claimer who has pulled no trumps at all must be >>> allowed to do so. >>> >>> That seems a bit perverse. What am I missing? >> Richard Hills: >> >> What I once missed declaring a cold 4Sx contract was >> that dummy and I had nine trumps between us, not >> merely eight. Because of my false belief that we had >> eight trumps I took a rational line of play (which would >> have been irrational for a more observant declarer) and >> scored -200. An early Christmas gift for the opponents. >> > So what would have happened had you realized that you had nine trumps > between you and the contract was cold, so you claimed, stating that > you would draw trumps? Would you expect your opponents to call the > director, because you might, left to your own devices, have misplayed > the hand thinking you only had eight trumps? Would you expect the > director to take them seriously? Was your claim statement faulty > because you failed to mention that you know there are 13 trumps in > the deck? If we allow rulings that account for players who "believe > that the pack contains only 12 trumps" Fact is, we allow for rulings that account for players who didn't notice that an opponent failed to follow suit, which is more frequent. It is often impossible to distinguish this from believing that there are only 12 trumps, whence it occasionally gives the impression that we cover the later case, but we don't. > , how do we deal with players > who might believe that the pack contains six suits, or believe that > the jass is always the highest trump? > > I fail to understand how Richard's anecdote is supposed to be in any > way relevant to what we're talking about. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 23 17:27:07 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:27:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) In-Reply-To: <713D6799815C45FB802E43B0C197BD64@changeme1> References: <348989162.361579.1324467573379.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> <93945890.405485.1324545490466.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <713D6799815C45FB802E43B0C197BD64@changeme1> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 01:43:34 -0500, Larry wrote: > Common enough. > I've had it at all levels. Also 2 'dummies', and even a member of the > declaring side leading followed by a 'defender' facing 'dummy'. > > Is it all three of the scenarios I described? > > >> The event you describe as "common" (opening lead out of turn combined >> with >> dummy starting to display his hand) still seems too bizarre that I would >> expect anyone on blml to have seen it. Tell me what I am missing? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 23 17:38:46 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:38:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull law (agree) In-Reply-To: <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:33:11 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 20/12/2011 19:50, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:40:43 -0500, Mike Amos >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I think the experienced TD should not have great difficulty in telling >>> the difference between an genuine unintended call and a "brain fart" - >>> If >>> you've got one Ace and respond five Diamonds to Blackwood when your >>> system response to show one Ace is Five Clubs and then you tell me this >>> is a >>> mispull, I shall remind you that Murdoch Junior is still saying that >>> he >>> never read his emails and no one believes him even if it is true and >>> that's just unlucky. I shall ask you if you've ever played that 5D >>> showed one Ace or even perhaps heard that other players did this. I >>> shall explain that in such a case it is impossible to convince me that >>> such a mistake was truly >>> unintentional as intended by the Lawmakers. >>> >> What you are saying here seems to be that you reject all claims of >> mispull >> for Blackwood responses. You don't play lie detector; you don't call >> them >> a liar; you just say that if he is telling the truth, that's unlucky >> because you are ruling against him. >> >> I have decided the same. I realized that far too many claims of mispull >> were occurring on Blackwood sequences. >> >> If you look, little pieces of advice like this are scattered around. The >> ACBL says that one should generally not accept a claim of mispull if the >> claimed mispull came from the other slot in the bidding box. > AG : a litlle bit too severe. There are some BBs where the Alert and > Stop cards are on the back. A player who is unfamiliar with those might > well pull Double in lieu of Stop even though they are remote from > eachother. > >> (I am >> starting to think that questions should start getting asked when the two >> calls are not adjacent.) > AG : same remark. Some BBs are horizontally arranged, other vertically. > Pulling the card which would have been at this place using the other > kind is perhaps the most frequent mispull. It's often obvious though (7C > in lieu of 1NT) and that's why we should still be allowed to exercise > our judgment rather than using strict rules. > >> >> Ton provides advice for the pass of partner's conventional bid. This >> would >> anyway be covered by the call coming from a different part of the box. > AG : wrong, if the intention was to pull the Stop card (as in : 2D 18-19 > balanced -> 3NT). > >> Is there other guidance anywhere? > AG : I have some. TFLB says consider the balance of probabilities, not > rule against when there is any doubt (to borow Herman's style, allow the > claim of mispull from a 51% probability, not from 95%) > >> FINAL SOLUTION > AG : would you mind using some other locution (especially in capitals) ? > >> (for directors who don't want to play lie detector and who >> worry about letting liars prosper): Assess (1) if the error is >> mechanically plausible and (2) if there is any reason to suspect brain >> fart (see list above). If the answers are yes and no, accept the claim >> of >> mispull; otherwise, reject. >> > > AG : as said above, this doesn't conform to TFLB's demands. If the > answers are Yes and Yes, you MUST judge on the balance of probabilities. > Yes, it's far from easy. After all, that's what we're paid for. > > Best regards > > Alain I am going to agree with balance of probabilities. There was another criterion I forgot, and it fits perfectly into your balance of probabilities. If a player puts down a call and immediately sees that it is wrong, they might immediately express their dismay. Immediacy is not perfect evidence, because one might immediately realize one's bidding error. But it is a good sign for mispull. If they don't immediately express their dismay, they might not have looked at their bid or perhaps they are thinking what to do. So this isn't especially good evidence that the call was not a mispull. But it is negative evidence which anyone balancing probabilities will consider. You make a good point about hard and fast rules. Right, assessessing the mechanical plausibility of a mispull can be more complicated. But I remember two cases of a player opening 1 of a minor, changing it to a claim of mispull, and then bidding 1NT. I allowed both, but neither meets your 51% criterion -- I think they were both misbids. If they put out a double card and then start rummaging in their box for another call, and they were about to skip the bidding and it is obvious from their hand that they were going to skip the bidding, then right, it makes sense to give therm credit for a mispull. If they smugly sit back after making the double, that's a different story. Of course, that does not violate the principle of not allowing claims of mispull from different parts of the box. It just makes it more complicated. BTW, pepole might search for the stop card by color, so it is unlikely that they will mispull pass instead of stop. So, to use your principles, I would be fairly happy to allow a player to substitute a double with a bid of 3NT (over partners 20-21 hbalanced opening of 2D). If the player wanted to substitute 3NT for a pass, claiming he meant the stop sign, I am going to make sure that he had an obvious 3NT bid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 23 17:40:55 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:40:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull law (disagree) In-Reply-To: <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EECCC2E.6010200@comcast.net> <5E64EE6C-6C15-4343-960C-8E3E0FD8543B@mac.com> <4EECEA90.1050706@comcast.net> <9CDCE8047DCA4E01A7836305347434D2@erdos> <4EED4599.5060702@comcast.net> <479BA9B74FED4260972560B22AADEEEA@erdos> <4EEDA4A0.3020106@btinternet.com> <3E3EC7DB0EFF411CA1AACE64D4928738@changeme1> <6FE0578F9B784AF2BA22DCC88ED6722E@G3> <2E404F0B-C29A-4912-8DDD-D5FA80D6A3BA@starpower.net> <023401ccbe66$1c5cd7d0$55168770$@nl> <023801ccbe72$73cebea0$5b6c3be0$@nl> <024d01ccbe7c$2a1170f0$7e3452d0$@nl> <6CF6AC79E4794BDAA2E81F6047CADAB3@MikePC> <4EF32387.70602@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:33:11 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 20/12/2011 19:50, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:40:43 -0500, Mike Amos >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I think the experienced TD should not have great difficulty in telling >>> the difference between an genuine unintended call and a "brain fart" - >>> If >>> you've got one Ace and respond five Diamonds to Blackwood when your >>> system response to show one Ace is Five Clubs and then you tell me this >>> is a >>> mispull, I shall remind you that Murdoch Junior is still saying that >>> he >>> never read his emails and no one believes him even if it is true and >>> that's just unlucky. I shall ask you if you've ever played that 5D >>> showed one Ace or even perhaps heard that other players did this. I >>> shall explain that in such a case it is impossible to convince me that >>> such a mistake was truly >>> unintentional as intended by the Lawmakers. >>> >> What you are saying here seems to be that you reject all claims of >> mispull >> for Blackwood responses. You don't play lie detector; you don't call >> them >> a liar; you just say that if he is telling the truth, that's unlucky >> because you are ruling against him. >> >> I have decided the same. I realized that far too many claims of mispull >> were occurring on Blackwood sequences. >> >> If you look, little pieces of advice like this are scattered around. The >> ACBL says that one should generally not accept a claim of mispull if the >> claimed mispull came from the other slot in the bidding box. > AG : a litlle bit too severe. There are some BBs where the Alert and > Stop cards are on the back. A player who is unfamiliar with those might > well pull Double in lieu of Stop even though they are remote from > eachother. > >> (I am >> starting to think that questions should start getting asked when the two >> calls are not adjacent.) > AG : same remark. Some BBs are horizontally arranged, other vertically. > Pulling the card which would have been at this place using the other > kind is perhaps the most frequent mispull. It's often obvious though (7C > in lieu of 1NT) and that's why we should still be allowed to exercise > our judgment rather than using strict rules. > >> >> Ton provides advice for the pass of partner's conventional bid. This >> would >> anyway be covered by the call coming from a different part of the box. > AG : wrong, if the intention was to pull the Stop card (as in : 2D 18-19 > balanced -> 3NT). > >> Is there other guidance anywhere? > AG : I have some. TFLB says consider the balance of probabilities, not > rule against when there is any doubt (to borow Herman's style, allow the > claim of mispull from a 51% probability, not from 95%) > >> FINAL SOLUTION > AG : would you mind using some other locution (especially in capitals) ? > >> (for directors who don't want to play lie detector and who >> worry about letting liars prosper): Assess (1) if the error is >> mechanically plausible and (2) if there is any reason to suspect brain >> fart (see list above). If the answers are yes and no, accept the claim >> of >> mispull; otherwise, reject. >> > > AG : as said above, this doesn't conform to TFLB's demands. If the > answers are Yes and Yes, you MUST judge on the balance of probabilities. > Yes, it's far from easy. After all, that's what we're paid for. I will also disagree. Directors should not be put in the position where the only way they can rule against a player is to essentially call the player a liar. We MUST (capitals) be able to say something like, "I am sure you are telling me the truth, but I cannot rule mispull in this situation." Agree? If you don't have that, directors pretty much have to accept almost all claims of mispull. It is also very important, if possible, to have laws that do not reward liars and cheaters. Agree? If the director accepts all claims of mispull, it is cheater's paradise. Putting these two principles together, the lawmakers usually minimize the importance of self-report and minimize how often the director is required to play lie detector. I can list about 5 laws that are written this one. To give one example from yesterday, a defender held a card up (without playing it). The question is whether this card becomes a penalty card. The principle is quite simple -- if partner saw the card, it is not fair to the opponents; we rectify for possible damage by making it a penalty card. the player's partner said she had her head down and did not see the card, the opponents did not dispute this, and the partner is an upstanding member of the club who I have never seen do anything inappropriate. So I trust her claim that she did not see the card. But the lawmakers wrote the law differently, for good reason. The question is whether or not she could have seen the card. Now her self-report becomes much less relevant. Now I can rule against her without calling her a liar. In fact, I used a well-known principle -- if both declarer and dummy could see the card, partner probably could have seen it. For the same reasons, then, it is wrong if the claim of mispull is always accepted. As a perfectly honest player, I am more than happy to be ruled against whenever their is any doubt that my call was a mispull. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 26 04:26:58 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 03:26:58 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > The percentages are irrelevant. You are required to rule on the basis of > probability. Firstly, have the conditions of the laws been met? Then, is > it more probable (on the basis of the available evidence) that the call > is unintended than that it is intended ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4920 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111226/797d456f/attachment.bin From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 26 16:35:46 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:35:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:26:58 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Skype: grattan.endicott > ************************************************** > "Good men must not obey the laws too well." > [Ralph Waldo Emerson] > ""************************************************ > > +=+ As I read the law book the question is an absolute one - intended > or unintended. Probabilities may contribute to a decision but I would > offer the view that the question for the Director to address is what > does he believe. Taking into account whatever evidence he garners he > should act upon his belief, I suggest. Is there a way the law can be rewritten for 2017? That's a real question. If I follow this advice, my ruling is deciding whether or not the player has lied. Almost all of our laws are carefully written to avoid me having to do this. I very much do not want to rule that a player has lied. And the probabilities have to be fairly high before I do that, like 95%. So then I would have to almost always accepting the claim of mispull. If we are going to accept all claims of mispulls on a Blackwood response, let's just change the laws to fit that. Assuming you don't like this any better than me, how can we change it for 2017? For now, and I think past 2017 if you don't want to change the law, more advice and guidance from regulating authorities would work. I like being able to say "I do not allow claims of mispull in this situation" and to be able to point to the ACBL or Ton as authorities. Hmm, I will take Mike Amos too. Mike Amos: "Nonetheless short of directly accusing him of lying I'd backed myself and him into a corner where there was no simple way out." (Mike Amos, explaining why he ruled mispull even though the player was lying.) Mike Amos: "I think the experienced TD should not have great difficulty in telling the difference between an genuine unintended call and a "brain fart" - If you've got one Ace and respond five Diamonds to Blackwood when your system response to show one Ace is Five Clubs and then you tell me this is a mispull, I shall remind you that Murdoch Junior is still saying that he never read his emails and no one believes him even if it is true and that's just unlucky. I shall ask you if you've ever played that 5D showed one Ace or even perhaps heard that other players did this. I shall explain that in such a case it is impossible to convince me that such a mistake was truly unintentional as intended by the Lawmakers." I think here Mike is saying that he doesn't even ask the player if it was a mispull, Mike warns the player in advance that he isn't going to rule that way. Bob This seems to suggest: If a player claims he made a mispull, then I collect evidence to decide whether or not the player is a liar. Is that how you want directors ruling? I pretty much am going to avoid calling a player a liar. In other words, I almost never do it unless I have to, and even then I try to avoid it. I would probably need around a 95% probability that they were lying to rule that way. Do you want the standard of evidence to be 5%? I like the laws which allow me to make a ruling without calling a player a liar. Which is pretty much how the rule book is written. For example, they say that they were going to make that bid even if partner had not hesitated? I say "not relevant". I like formulas for making decisions, like the UI laws. Let me put it this way. A Blackwood response pretty much by itself cannot meet the ACBL's strong standards for determining mispull, which differ from yours BTW. The past three weeks I had two of these. I could have ruled that I did not believe them. Very awkward. I instead said "I do not accept claims of mispulls for Blackwood responses." Then they said "okay". It would help if someone official somewhere gave that advice. The alternative is accept all claims of mispull in a Backwood sequence. If we are going to do that, I am with Nigel -- if we allow all claims of mispull, then let's just make them legal. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 26 17:08:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:08:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16A Message-ID: Let me explain what I want to do here. The format for L16A is wrong. It should be 1. Everything partner does is UI except....... and everything the opponents do is UI except................. I just want to change the format. Then of course, it is difficult to fill in the except's. Help? I have no desire to actually change the content of the law. I have no desire to actually write the words, there are people who can do that better than me. -------------------------------------------------- Law 16A should be a comprehensive description of what is and is not AI. Some problems with the 2007 L16A: 1. The examples in L16B contradict it. To give one example, answers to questions are part of the procedures of the game and hence AI according to L16A. 2. By referrring the legal procedures, L16A forces a reading of the entire lawbook to settle issues. You opponent shows you he has the ace of diamonds. Is tha a part of the legal procedures of the game? 3. It still fails. If an oppenent tells you he has the ace of diamonds, that is UI to you (because it is not a call or play or part of the legal procedures of the game). 4. Circularity. It should say that information specific to a hand is extraneous even if it procured before the auction starts. It doesn't. The relevant law should have been L16C1, but that law applies only if the information is unauthorized. I assume we go back to L16A to determine this? The underlying problem is that L16A does not distinguish actions by partner versus actions by the opponent. So, explanations are a part of the procedures of the game, so they are AI to both opponents (correct) and partner (incorrect); hesitations are not a part of the procedures of the game, so they are UI to both opponents (incorrect) and partner (correct). A good L16A can be written using the following structure. (I am not sure in every case what the WBFLC considers AI versus UI. There is no intent to change content here. The particular words are not important. My comments are in brackets) 1. Everything your partner does during play is UI except: a. legal calls and plays b. insufficient bids c. calls and plays (actions) that are withdrawn following the opponents' infraction. d. partner's decision concerning an opponent's infraction. Additionally, information from partner can be used to make a correct explanation of partner's bids. [This is what the people on blml say should be the ruling; if you want something different, fine, I am trying here just to avoid a change in content. I believe the WBFLC has minuted that partner's explanations can be used to provide correct explanations of partner's bids.] 2. Everything the opponents do during play, concerning the board being played is AI except: a. How they sort their cards or where they pull a card from their hand. You may not look, know, or use. b. actions that they withdraw as a result of your irregularity. UI [?]c. Any actions they take to understand your bids (asking questions, looking at the convention card). [This is what I have been told for ACBL-land; if it is not the intent of the WBFLC, again there is no attempt here to change intended content.] 3. Information from other soures is extraneous, except the following are AI; a. Everything from the legal procedures of the game, or conditions of contest. b. Anything the director does. c. Anything relevant to prior to or after the play. [Getting to the right table, correcting a score] d. Anything relevant to a hand heard after the play period is completed. 4. When information was UI or EI, but is later given as AI, then it becomes AI. [Example: a player hestitates, showing values, then bids showing those values.] Unauthorized information is a synonym for extraneous information. From blml at arcor.de Mon Dec 26 17:09:45 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:09:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) Message-ID: <1221345036.288203.1324915785304.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > The event you describe as "common" (opening lead out of turn combined with > dummy starting to display his hand) still seems too bizarre that I would > expect anyone on blml to have seen it. Tell me what I am missing? I am guessing that you never played large numbers of hands with screens. I am pretty sure that you do not enforce time penalties at your club, and you probably do not play or direct in many tournaments where time penalties are regularly enforced. Say, 2 hours 10 minutes for a 16 board segment. After 12 boards have been completed, there are about 10 minutes left on the clock. Players will then simply put down dummy, make the opening lead face up, or make a quick claim. Anything that speeds up play, especially when the auction indicates that only overtricks are at stake. > 1. The player puts down his hand as dummy, even though RHO has not yet > led. This has to be at least extremely rare here. This indeed happens only very rarely if dummy and dummy's RHO are on the same side of the screen. If dummy and dummy's RHO are on different sides of the screen, it is common that dummy comes down before RHO has led, especially when time penalties are threatening. > Once a month? Meanwhile, > on the other side of the screen, a player has led face up out of turn. I > rate that as 1/240 here, leaving me with it happening every 20 years. Then > the players raise the screen and discover the problem. Try a slightly different scenario. Dummy's RHO, on the same side of the screen as dummy, makes the opening lead face down. Dummy comes down. Meanwhile, on the other side of the screen, there is a face up LOOT. Or a face down LOOT which was faced when the screen is being opened. > 2. Or, LHO has made an apparent opening lead, and RHO (on the same side of > the screen) puts down his hand as dummy. If this was a proper lead, it > would mean declarer is explosing his hand. That is very rare here, and > when you again factor in the that lead is faced up out of turn, you get an > extremely improbably event. This is really the same one as your scenario number 3. I have seen that one, too, albeit if memory serves only very rarely. Screen goes up, and on the other side of the screen there is both a dummy and a face up lead from dummy's LHO. Thomas From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Dec 26 19:31:38 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:31:38 -0600 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > **************************************************> "Good men must not obey the laws too well."> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [Ralph Waldo Emerson]> ""************************************************> > +=+ As I read the law book the question is an absolute one - intended > or unintended. Probabilities may contribute to a decision but I would > offer the view that the question for the Director to address is what > does he believe. Taking into account whatever evidence he garners he > should act upon his belief, I suggest. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > ...................................................................... [Law 85 A1] In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. The last sentence Grattan wrote above seems a bit unlawful to me. The director is supposed to base his view not on whatever evidence he garners, but on whatever evidence he is able to garner. The law gives the director a standard that is much higher than Grattan's paraphrase. (Is this the reason Grattan quoted Emerson here?) Be that as it may, I appreciate Mike Amos's and Robert Frick's desire to rule without having to tell players that you believe they are lying. Maybe I don't understand Grattan's view well enough. I have two questions relating to the probabilities Grattan mentions: If the director, taking into account whatever evidence he garners, believes that the likelihoods are 45% unintended, 55% intended, is he supposed to rule that it is not a mispull? Is the director allowed or required to include in his evidence how he feels about the player's deportment in past deals? (For example, players who the director feels are honest from past deals---would they benefit with a higher probability of receiving a ruling of mispull, ceteris paribus?) Jerry Fusselman From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Dec 27 00:16:44 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:16:44 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seems to me, Robert, you're in danger of making use of "table presence" illegal. From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Dec 27 00:29:37 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:29:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 26, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> **************************************************> "Good men must not obey the laws too well."> [Ralph Waldo Emerson]> ""************************************************> >> +=+ As I read the law book the question is an absolute one - intended >> or unintended. Probabilities may contribute to a decision but I would >> offer the view that the question for the Director to address is what >> does he believe. Taking into account whatever evidence he garners he >> should act upon his belief, I suggest. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> ...................................................................... > > Maybe I don't understand Grattan's view well enough. I have two > questions relating to the probabilities Grattan mentions: If the > director, taking into account whatever evidence he garners, believes > that the likelihoods are 45% unintended, 55% intended, is he supposed > to rule that it is not a mispull? > > Is the director allowed or required to include in his evidence how he > feels about the player's deportment in past deals? (For example, > players who the director feels are honest from past deals---would they > benefit with a higher probability of receiving a ruling of mispull, > ceteris paribus?) If the director has pertinent evidence, he can't ignore it. OTOH, I'm not so sure how he *feels* is evidence. I don't think it's necessary for a director to attempt to assign specific percentages to his judgement of the probabilities attached to evidence. It may also be ill-advised. Ed From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 27 00:32:55 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:32:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:16:44 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > Seems to me, Robert, you're in danger of making use of "table presence" > illegal. Semi. Anything from opponents is legal; anything from partner is not. If you just have some vague feeling that could have been caused by your partner's reactions -- do we really want to allow that? True example: 1D P 1H P 1NT The player bid 1NT with 18 HCP, even though the bid shows 12-14. Partner had 3 or 4 HCP and was just running from 1D. He claimed table presence. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 00:51:28 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:51:28 -0600 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > On Dec 26, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >>> **************************************************> "Good men must not obey the laws too well."> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [Ralph Waldo Emerson]> ""************************************************> >>> +=+ As I read the law book the question is an absolute one - intended >>> or unintended. Probabilities may contribute to a decision but I would >>> offer the view that the question for the Director to address is what >>> does he believe. Taking into account whatever evidence he garners he >>> should act upon his belief, I suggest. >>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ >>> ...................................................................... >> >> Maybe I don't understand Grattan's view well enough. ?I have two >> questions relating to the probabilities Grattan mentions: ?If the >> director, taking into account whatever evidence he garners, believes >> that the likelihoods are 45% unintended, 55% intended, is he supposed >> to rule that it is not a mispull? >> >> Is the director allowed or required to include in his evidence how he >> feels about the player's deportment in past deals? ?(For example, >> players who the director feels are honest from past deals---would they >> benefit with a higher probability of receiving a ruling of mispull, >> ceteris paribus?) > > If the director has pertinent evidence, he can't ignore it. OTOH, I'm not so sure how he *feels* is evidence. > > I don't think it's necessary for a director to attempt to assign specific percentages to his judgement of the probabilities attached to evidence. It may also be ill-advised. > > Ed > Hello, Ed, My choice of the word "feels" was meant only to convey that the director does not need to offer proof, and that he takes everything into account that he feels is relevant. Do you have a better word? The probabilities I offered we just a way to suggest the phrase "more likely than not." The director does not need to distinguish between 55 and 65%, just which side of 50 he is on. Do you have some dislike for subjective probability? How can a director direct without subjective probability---that's what I want to know. I am not sure what the danger is, in your mind, of coming up with a number. Perhaps you can explain it to me. You say it "may be ill-advised," so you are perhaps uncertain. You would agree, I assume, that if has to make some assessment what is likely. How would you have him communicate that? Jerry From blackshoe at mac.com Tue Dec 27 01:30:41 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 19:30:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21F7E39A-D108-41EF-A863-89C0784F7AE5@mac.com> On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > My choice of the word "feels" was meant only to convey that the > director does not need to offer proof, and that he takes everything > into account that he feels is relevant. Do you have a better word? "Judges" perhaps. That is, after all, what we pay him to do. :-) > The probabilities I offered we just a way to suggest the phrase "more > likely than not." The director does not need to distinguish between > 55 and 65%, just which side of 50 he is on. > > Do you have some dislike for subjective probability? How can a > director direct without subjective probability---that's what I want to > know. I have no problem with a director who says to himself "it looks to me like most of the evidence points towards A rather than B" and so rules on that basis. I think you're misusing the language, though. Yes, every judgement is subjective, in the sense that a person makes it. However, my dictionary says of "subjective" "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", and the first two, at least, have no place in a TD's judgement. "Objective", on the other hand, means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts", which is precisely how we want TDs to judge, or so it seems to me. > I am not sure what the danger is, in your mind, of coming up with a > number. Perhaps you can explain it to me. You say it "may be > ill-advised," so you are perhaps uncertain. I do not want to give inexperienced TDs the impression that a numerical assessment is appropriate. > You would agree, I assume, that if has to make some assessment what is > likely. How would you have him communicate that? "My judgement is that the preponderance of the evidence leans in favor of A, rather than B. Therefore, I so rule." Or something like that. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 01:57:51 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:57:51 -0600 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <21F7E39A-D108-41EF-A863-89C0784F7AE5@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > My choice of the word "feels" was meant only to convey that the > > director does not need to offer proof, and that he takes everything > > into account that he feels is relevant. ?Do you have a better word? > > "Judges" perhaps. That is, after all, what we pay him to do. :-) > > > The probabilities I offered we just a way to suggest the phrase "more > > likely than not." ?The director does not need to distinguish between > > 55 and 65%, just which side of 50 he is on. > > > > Do you have some dislike for subjective probability? ?How can a > > director direct without subjective probability---that's what I want to > > know. > > I have no problem with a director who says to himself "it looks to me like most of the evidence points towards A rather than B" and so rules on that basis. I think you're misusing the language, though. Yes, every judgement is subjective, in the sense that a person makes it. However, my dictionary says of "subjective" "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", and the first two, at least, have no place in a TD's judgement. "Objective", on the other hand, means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts", which is precisely how we want TDs to judge, or so it seems to me. ("Subjective probability" is a term you can read about on the internet.) I am not sure where you are headed with this. ?Would you consider responding to my earlier question---Is the director allowed or required to include in his evidence how he feels about the player's deportment in past deals? ?(For example, players who the director feels are honest from past deals---would they benefit with a higher probability of receiving a ruling of mispull, ceteris paribus?) I guess you would have to substitute the word "judges" for my word "feels" to answer the question. ?I expect many directors would like the word "finds" even better than "judges", though this hardly matters to me---I don't make any distinction in meaning between these words. Just a find any synonym for "decides" that pleases you. > > > > I am not sure what the danger is, in your mind, of coming up with a > > number. ?Perhaps you can ?explain it to me. ?You say it "may be > > ill-advised," so you are perhaps uncertain. > > I do not want to give inexperienced TDs the impression that a numerical assessment is appropriate. Not entirely responsive. ?I know what you what you want, I don't know what danger you are thinking of? Are you saying that it is unwise to give inexperienced TDs any guidance as to where the cutoff is? You want to be objective---are you willing to state a cutoff line? > > > You would agree, I assume, that if has to make some assessment what is > > likely. ?How would you have him communicate that? > > "My judgement is that the preponderance of the evidence leans in favor of A, rather than B. Therefore, I so rule." Or something like that. > The difference between this and 51/49 I cannot easily fathom. Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 27 03:51:28 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:51:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] remove L54B (accept the OLOOT and remain declarer) In-Reply-To: <1221345036.288203.1324915785304.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <1221345036.288203.1324915785304.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:09:45 -0500, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> The event you describe as "common" (opening lead out of turn combined >> with >> dummy starting to display his hand) still seems too bizarre that I would >> expect anyone on blml to have seen it. Tell me what I am missing? > > I am guessing that you never played large numbers of hands with > screens. > > I am pretty sure that you do not enforce time penalties at your club, > and you probably do not play or direct in many tournaments where > time penalties are regularly enforced. Say, > 2 hours 10 minutes for a 16 board segment. > After 12 boards have been completed, > there are about 10 minutes left on the clock. Players will then simply > put down dummy, make the opening lead face up, > or make a quick claim. Anything that speeds up play, especially when > the auction indicates that only overtricks are at stake. > > >> 1. The player puts down his hand as dummy, even though RHO has not yet >> led. This has to be at least extremely rare here. > > This indeed happens only very rarely if dummy and dummy's RHO are on the > same side > of the screen. If dummy and dummy's RHO are on different sides of > the screen, it is common that dummy comes down before RHO has led, > especially when time penalties are threatening. Yes, but then how do you get an OLOOT? > >> Once a month? Meanwhile, >> on the other side of the screen, a player has led face up out of turn. I >> rate that as 1/240 here, leaving me with it happening every 20 years. >> Then >> the players raise the screen and discover the problem. > > Try a slightly different scenario. > Dummy's RHO, on the same side of the screen as dummy, > makes the opening lead face down. Dummy comes down. > Meanwhile, on the other side of the screen, there is a face up LOOT. > Or a face down LOOT which was faced when the screen is being opened. First, this is more complicated than just an OLOOT and an exposed dummy. (And I have not trouble understanding how this could happen.) By far, the best solution here seems to be to rule that the leads were simultaneous (or rule as if the leads were simultaneous). Anything else is liable to get you into trouble. Declarer is not going to like having to accept the OLOOT, especially if the L23 corrections are going against him. So you should want to make that ruling. Meanwhile, the laws seem pretty clear that this is the correct ruling. > > >> 2. Or, LHO has made an apparent opening lead, and RHO (on the same side >> of >> the screen) puts down his hand as dummy. If this was a proper lead, it >> would mean declarer is explosing his hand. That is very rare here, and >> when you again factor in the that lead is faced up out of turn, you get >> an >> extremely improbably event. > > This is really the same one as your scenario number 3. > I have seen that one, too, albeit if memory serves only very rarely. > Screen goes up, and on the other side of the screen > there is both a dummy and a face up lead from dummy's LHO. They are different for purposes of applying L23A. BUt right, otherwise the same. So, the situation of just an OLOOT and exposed dummy is very rare. Larry, do you want to claim different? And they could be a result of people trying to game the system. Thanks, this has been really helpful (and I am glad to continue). Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 28 00:46:24 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:46:24 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2769CD88-1B77-4546-A2FC-6A89EBD62767@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >So what would have happened had you realized that >you had nine trumps between you and the contract >was cold, so you claimed, stating that you would draw >trumps? Would you expect your opponents to call the >director, because you might, left to your own devices, >have misplayed the hand thinking you only had eight >trumps? [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion a correctly stated claim is a safety play in the fourth dimension, preventing a later irrational and/or illegal aberration. In my opinion an incorrectly stated claim annihilates any safety play in the fourth dimension. If embedded in a claim is an inference of a subsequent irrational play (for example, failure to draw all of the outstanding trumps), then the Director awards that inferential hence doubtful irrational point to the non-claiming side. Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens, footnote on page 188: Shadwell hated all southerners and, by inference, was standing at the North Pole. Richard Hills: As a novice I declared 6NT with 13 top tricks. Since this was the first time that I had declared a slam which had a chance of success, I decided to play out the deal trick by trick. Alas, I revoked(1), and under the 1975 Lawbook then in force there was a two trick penalty, thus again I was yet to succeed in a slam. Now I claim when holding 13 top tricks. Happy New Year, Richard Hills (1) The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that a claim incorporating an _illegal_ play (e.g. a lead from the wrong hand or a revoke) is followed by the Director only up until the moment before the proposed illegality. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111227/3f9bca22/attachment.html From blackshoe at mac.com Wed Dec 28 02:42:15 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:42:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: References: <21F7E39A-D108-41EF-A863-89C0784F7AE5@mac.com> Message-ID: <734D0F5F-7FA5-470E-A6CB-547DEB564025@mac.com> On Dec 26, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > ("Subjective probability" is a term you can read about on the internet.) > I am not sure where you are headed with this. Would you consider > responding to my earlier question---Is the director allowed or > required to include in his evidence how he feels about the player's > deportment in past deals? (For example, players who the director > feels are honest from past deals---would they benefit with a higher > probability of receiving a ruling of mispull, ceteris paribus?) I did respond to your earlier question. The director is required to include in his deliberations all evidence he can gather pertinent to the situation with which he is dealing. That includes his opinions formed at previous times of a player's tendency to "try it on", his honesty in general, and similar matters. Still, the question rarely, IMO, boils down to "is this guy telling the truth, or lying?" >> I do not want to give inexperienced TDs the impression that a numerical assessment is appropriate. > > Not entirely responsive. I know what you what you want, I don't know > what danger you are thinking of? Are you saying that it is unwise to > give inexperienced TDs any guidance as to where the cutoff is? You > want to be objective---are you willing to state a cutoff line? The danger that an inexperienced TD might get the impression that determined some numerical probability is the right way to make a ruling. How was that unclear? >>> You would agree, I assume, that if has to make some assessment what is >>> likely. How would you have him communicate that? >> >> "My judgement is that the preponderance of the evidence leans in favor of A, rather than B. Therefore, I so rule." Or something like that. >> > > The difference between this and 51/49 I cannot easily fathom. Is there a difference between 51/49 and 50.5/49.5? How about 50.1/49.9? You seem to be wedded to numbers ? and to dragging me, kicking and screaming, in with you. Not going there. This is not a mathematical exercise. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 29 06:03:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:03:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sir John Betjeman CBE, Poet Laureate 1972 - 1984 "Executive" (second stanza): You ask me what it is I do. Well, actually, you know, I?m partly a liaison man, and partly P.R.O. Essentially, I integrate the current export drive And basically I?m viable from ten o?clock till five. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Players however, have difficulty understanding >them. It is frustrating to play a game with rules so >sophisticated that even top law-makers and >referees cannot understand their meaning or >agree on rulings. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes and No. In my opinion the Laws of Duplicate Bridge have a very appropriate level of sophistication which matches the inherent sophistication of the game. But in my opinion Edgar Kaplan's flawed "mot juste" approach to the Laws -- writing one nuanced word when writing several plain English words would have been better -- has made the Laws much harder to understand, especially for grass- roots Directors and/or Directors for whom English is a second language. So my solution to non-understandable Laws is not to change the substantive meaning of the Laws, but instead to rewrite the Laws into plain English. For example, Edgar Kaplan might have written: Scintillate, scintillate globule lucific Fain would I fathom thy nature specific Loftily perched in the ether capacious Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous. which I would translate into plain English as: Twinkle, twinkle little star How I wonder what you are Up above the world so high Like a diamond in the sky. Happy New Year, Richard Hills Diversity banner signature block.jpg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111229/48d0d886/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 21462219.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111229/48d0d886/attachment.jpg From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 30 01:20:27 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:20:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Faulty claim, can he draw trumps? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sellar and Yeatman, 1066 and All That: The Cavaliers (Wrong but Wromantic) and the Roundheads (Right but Repulsive). Eric Landau wromantically asserted: [snip] >There is no provision of any law that permits a do- >over in any case in which the action in question was >the result of a temporary lack of attention to detail. Law 48A, second sentence: Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally. Law 62B2, first clause: The card may be replaced without further rectification if it was played from declarer?s (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or dummy?s hand, Happy New Year, Repulsive Richard Diversity banner signature block.jpg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111230/85439c29/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 51995014.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111230/85439c29/attachment.jpg From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 30 02:03:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:03:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Princess Bridge [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EF2F90E.1050808@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >Interestingly the EBU takes a different view about >appealing DPs. The White Book says: > >91.3 Appealing penalties > >Disciplinary penalties may be appealed by any >player at the table or by the captain of one of the >teams present. Only in extreme circumstances >would it be expected that a penalty be changed >when the opposition appeal. > >An Appeals Committee cannot overturn the TD >in the matter of issuing a disciplinary penalty, but >can recommend that the TD changes it. > >The clause in Law 91A that refers to the TD?s >decision being final and thus not appealable >only applies to when the TD suspends a player >for all or part of the current session. The second sentence of Law 91A, as unofficially paraphrased by Richard Hills: The Director?s decision under this clause [i.e. Law 91A] is final ["final" is defined as "may not be over- ruled by an appeals committee"] (see Law 93B3). But as the second sentence of the quoted White Book clause above relates, Law 93B3 specifically states that an appeal to an Appeals Committee is permitted even when the Appeals Committee lacks the power to change the Director's ruling. Of course as a practical matter, suspension for all or part of the current session cannot possibly be reversed if the Appeals Committee persuades the Director in charge that she was wrong, but the Appeals Committee convenes after the current session concludes. However, as a natural justice rectification, if the Director in charge is convinced by fact-finding from the Appeals Committee that she incorrectly suspended Romulus instead of correctly suspending his identical twin partner Remus, then she could issue to Romulus three Ave+ for the three boards that Romulus was incorrectly suspended. And now she could retrospectively suspend Remus, so subtract those three Ave+ from the Romulus-Remus partnership. Kind regards, Richard Hills Diversity banner signature block.jpg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20111230/9cef11e1/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18459178.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111230/9cef11e1/attachment-0001.jpg From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Fri Dec 30 05:54:17 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:54:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 15 Message-ID: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> Hi BlMlers, I send you one example of the present Laws (Law 15) written according to my Flow Charts. Law 15: Play of a Wrong Board A. Error Discovered During the Auction The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board. If during the auction period the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round: 1. The Director shall cancel the auction 2. The Director ensures that the correct contestants are seated and that all players involved are informed of their lawful obligations and rights both now and at future rounds. 3. A second auction begins Players who participated in the first auction must repeat the calls they made previously. A call repeated with much different meaning shall be deemed a different call. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. B. Error Discovered After Play Period Commenced 1. One Payer Previously Played the Board a) If any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the board is canceled both for his side and his opponents. b) The Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score 2. Players Have Not Previously Played Board a) The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players has previously played the board. b) The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later. IMHO, more tailored on the real job made at table. Laval Du Breuil Qu?bec, Canada From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Dec 30 11:18:23 2011 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:18:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> Message-ID: <81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8568581F@PCdeOlivier> something strange to me : This Law has four items, A1-2 & B1-2 but B2 is the outcoming of A1 & B1 of A2 i suggest to switch B1-B2 (or A1-A2) to have a symetry, Thx Olivier Beauvillain From g3 at nige1.com Fri Dec 30 12:17:45 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:17:45 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Duplicate Bridge Law plain English [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DE1CFFE16434B5D90ECBC6BE77F430E@G3> [Nige1] [snip] Players however, have difficulty understanding them. It is frustrating to play a game with rules so sophisticated that even top law-makers and referees cannot understand their meaning or agree on rulings.[snip] [Richard Hills] Yes and No. In my opinion the Laws of Duplicate Bridge have a very appropriate level of sophistication which matches the inherent sophistication of the game. But in my opinion Edgar Kaplan's flawed "mot juste" approach to the Laws -- writing one nuanced word when writing several plain English words would have been better -- has made the Laws much harder to understand, especially for grass-roots Directors and/or Directors for whom English is a second language. So my solution to non-understandable Laws is not to change the substantive meaning of the Laws, but instead to rewrite the Laws into plain English. [snip] [Nige2] The laws need improvement on at least four levels: 1. Clarification and disambiguation. Richard is right that this is relatively easy. Add new terms to the glossary and sharpen existing definitions. Use glossary terms wherever possible. Every time an ambiguity or mistake is discovered in a law, change the words, in place, in the on-line law-book. Translate the law-book into different languages and back to check on subtle alterations in meaning. To begin with, changes to the law-book would be frequent. In the longer term, as anomalies were eliminated and wording improved, the text would become more stable. An unfortunate consequence would be the death of controversies, that have amused BLMLers for decades. 2. Integration of local regulations, minutes, and the WBF CoC into the current law book. We would then enjoy a one-stop comprehensive rule-book. Chauvinist local regulators could still concoct idiosyncratic local variants but they would no longer be forced to do so by the gaping holes in TFLB. Eventually players might benefit from a level playing field. 3. Radical simplification. Some laws add no value and are unnecessary. Simpler laws would be easier to understand, comply with, and enforce ? without altering the fundamental nature and enjoyment of the game. (Of course, when the WBFLC consider adopting a proposed change, they should give it a practical trial first). 4. Restructuring the laws as a set of rules and protocols for directors to follow. For example, Laval Dubreuil?s flow-charts are a significant improvement. The current laws are such a mess that experienced BLMLers are unsure which laws are relevant, let alone how they should be interpreted. The major stumbling block to all this is the the vast investment in time and effort by directors and law-makers, trying to penetrate the current sophisticated miasma. Even the proposal to renumber the laws for the 2007 revision met with understandable and predictable protest. From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Dec 30 16:48:58 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:48:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: <81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8568581F@PCdeOlivier> References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> <81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8568581F@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:18 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > something strange to me : > This Law has four items, A1-2 & B1-2 > but B2 is the outcoming of A1 & B1 of A2 > i suggest to switch B1-B2 (or A1-A2) to have a symetry, While the headings in the laws are not legally binding, they *are* sometimes helpful. Law 22A is headed "End of the Auction", Law 22B is headed "End of the Auction Period". Two different events. 22A2 and 22B2 are thus appropriately placed. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Dec 30 17:15:15 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:15:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com><81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB85 68581F@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <4EFDE393.9020708@meteo.fr> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:18 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: > >> something strange to me : This Law has four items, A1-2 & B1-2 but >> B2 is the outcoming of A1 & B1 of A2 i suggest to switch B1-B2 (or >> A1-A2) to have a symetry, > > While the headings in the laws are not legally binding, they *are* > sometimes helpful. Law 22A is headed "End of the Auction", Law 22B is > headed "End of the Auction Period". Two different events. 22A2 and > 22B2 are thus appropriately placed. right, but you don't adress the problem raised by olivier. now, L22 is arranged as an X rhetorical figure (chiasme in french). it's a very appreciated asymmetry in poetry but not logical in a law book. the suggestion is to rearrange 22A1, 22A2, 22B2, 22B1. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Dec 30 17:46:39 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:46:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: <4EFDE393.9020708@meteo.fr> References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> <"81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB85 68581F"@PCdeOlivier> <4EFDE393.9020708@meteo.fr> Message-ID: On Dec 30, 2011, at 11:15 AM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > Ed Reppert a ?crit : >> On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:18 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: >> >>> something strange to me : This Law has four items, A1-2 & B1-2 but >>> B2 is the outcoming of A1 & B1 of A2 i suggest to switch B1-B2 (or >>> A1-A2) to have a symetry, >> >> While the headings in the laws are not legally binding, they *are* >> sometimes helpful. Law 22A is headed "End of the Auction", Law 22B is >> headed "End of the Auction Period". Two different events. 22A2 and >> 22B2 are thus appropriately placed. > > right, but you don't adress the problem raised by olivier. now, L22 is > arranged as an X rhetorical figure (chiasme in french). it's a very > appreciated asymmetry in poetry but not logical in a law book. the > suggestion is to rearrange 22A1, 22A2, 22B2, 22B1. I *did* address the problem ? I said it isn't one. :-) Law 22 rewrite: A. When All Four Players Pass 1. The auction ends when all four players pass, but see Law 25. The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal. 2. The auction period ends when all four hands have been returned to the board. B. When At Least One Player Has Bid 1. The auction ends when, one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, but see Law 19d. 2. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in B1 above, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. Is this what you're after? Is it really better than the original? I don't know, maybe it is. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 30 17:52:07 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:52:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 15 In-Reply-To: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> Message-ID: I don't know if there is much sentiment for rewriting the laws. But this seems really comfortable to read and understand. Thanks for giving this example. I just tried reading the real Law 15. It was confusing. Not impossible to understand by any means, but the first sentence is "If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round (but see C below): Do I read C first? Why not put it there if I am supposed to read it first? And of course at the table I might skip over a parenthetical statement (usually a good strategy) and then forget it. Or decide that A has precedence over C. > Hi BlMlers, > > I send you one example of the present Laws (Law 15) > written according to my Flow Charts. > > Law 15: Play of a Wrong Board > > A. Error Discovered During the Auction > > The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted > score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful > attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board. > > If during the auction period the Director discovers that a > contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play > in the current round: > 1. The Director shall cancel the auction > 2. The Director ensures that the correct contestants are > seated and that all players involved are informed of their > lawful obligations and rights both now and at future rounds. > 3. A second auction begins > Players who participated in the first auction must repeat > the calls they made previously. > A call repeated with much different meaning shall be deemed > a different call. > If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call > in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. > Otherwise the auction and play continue normally. > > B. Error Discovered After Play Period Commenced > > 1. One Payer Previously Played the Board > a) If any player plays a board he has previously played, with > the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the > board is canceled both for his side and his opponents. > b) The Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the > contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score > > 2. Players Have Not Previously Played Board > a) The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the > four players has previously played the board. > b) The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board > against one another later. > > IMHO, more tailored on the real job made at table. > Laval Du Breuil > Qu?bec, Canada > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Dec 30 18:16:52 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:16:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com><"81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8 5 68581F"@PCdeOlivier><4EFDE393 .9020708@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4EFDF204.9090609@meteo.fr> Ed Reppert a ?crit : > On Dec 30, 2011, at 11:15 AM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > >> Ed Reppert a ?crit : >>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:18 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: >>> >>>> something strange to me : This Law has four items, A1-2 & B1-2 >>>> but B2 is the outcoming of A1 & B1 of A2 i suggest to switch >>>> B1-B2 (or A1-A2) to have a symetry, >>> While the headings in the laws are not legally binding, they >>> *are* sometimes helpful. Law 22A is headed "End of the Auction", >>> Law 22B is headed "End of the Auction Period". Two different >>> events. 22A2 and 22B2 are thus appropriately placed. >> right, but you don't adress the problem raised by olivier. now, L22 >> is arranged as an X rhetorical figure (chiasme in french). it's a >> very appreciated asymmetry in poetry but not logical in a law book. >> the suggestion is to rearrange 22A1, 22A2, 22B2, 22B1. > > I *did* address the problem ? I said it isn't one. :-) > > Law 22 rewrite: > > A. When All Four Players Pass > > 1. The auction ends when all four players pass, but see Law 25. The > hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a > redeal. 2. The auction period ends when all four hands have been > returned to the board. > > B. When At Least One Player Has Bid > > 1. The auction ends when, one or more players having bid, there are > three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The > last bid becomes the contract, but see Law 19d. 2. The auction period > ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in B1 above, > either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, > then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the > end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. > > Is this what you're after? no, rather: A. End of auction The auction ends when: 1. all four players pass, but see Law 25. The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal. 2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, but see Law 19d. B. End of auction period 1. If no player bids (see A1) the auction period ends when all four hands have been returned to the board. 2. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. ok? jpr > Is it really better than the original? I > don't know, maybe it is. -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Fri Dec 30 19:41:22 2011 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: <4EFDF204.9090609@meteo.fr> References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com><"81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8 568581F"@PCdeOlivier><4EFDE393 .9020708@meteo.fr> <4EFDF204.9090609@meteo.fr> Message-ID: > On Dec 30, 2011, at 11:15 AM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > >> Ed Reppert a ?crit : >>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:18 AM, olivier.beauvillain wrote: >>> >>>> something strange to me : This Law has four items, A1-2 & B1-2 >>>> but B2 is the outcoming of A1 & B1 of A2 i suggest to switch >>>> B1-B2 (or A1-A2) to have a symetry, >>> While the headings in the laws are not legally binding, they >>> *are* sometimes helpful. Law 22A is headed "End of the Auction", >>> Law 22B is headed "End of the Auction Period". Two different >>> events. 22A2 and 22B2 are thus appropriately placed. >> right, but you don't adress the problem raised by olivier. now, L22 >> is arranged as an X rhetorical figure (chiasme in french). it's a >> very appreciated asymmetry in poetry but not logical in a law book. >> the suggestion is to rearrange 22A1, 22A2, 22B2, 22B1. > > I *did* address the problem ? I said it isn't one. :-) > > Law 22 rewrite: > > A. When All Four Players Pass > > 1. The auction ends when all four players pass, but see Law 25. The > hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a > redeal. 2. The auction period ends when all four hands have been > returned to the board. > > B. When At Least One Player Has Bid > > 1. The auction ends when, one or more players having bid, there are > three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The > last bid becomes the contract, but see Law 19d. 2. The auction period > ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in B1 above, > either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, > then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the > end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. > > Is this what you're after? no, rather: A. End of auction The auction ends when: 1. all four players pass, but see Law 25. The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal. 2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, but see Law 19d. B. End of auction period 1. If no player bids (see A1) the auction period ends when all four hands have been returned to the board. 2. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. ok? jpr yes exactly was i mean Olivier Beauvillain > Is it really better than the original? I > don't know, maybe it is. -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6756 (20111230) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6756 (20111230) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From blackshoe at mac.com Fri Dec 30 23:35:36 2011 From: blackshoe at mac.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:35:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: <4EFDF204.9090609@meteo.fr> References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com> <"81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8 5 68581F"@PCdeOlivier> <4EFDE393.9020708@meteo.fr> <4EFDF204.9090609@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <6D369475-A663-4DCA-A2BE-AE7F31B58B90@mac.com> On Dec 30, 2011, at 12:16 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > no, rather: > > A. End of auction > The auction ends when: > 1. all four players pass, but see Law 25. The hands are returned to the > board without play. There shall not be a redeal. > 2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in > rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, > but see Law 19d. > > B. End of auction period > 1. If no player bids (see A1) the auction period ends when all four > hands have been returned to the board. > 2. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as > in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of > turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and > the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. > > ok? Well, I see what you did, reversing the order of the two sub parts of 22B so that each would refer to its corresponding number in A, but that's apparently not what olivier was talking about. See his reply to me. Frankly, I don't think your change does much to clarify anything. Maybe that's just me. From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Sat Dec 31 09:19:58 2011 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:19:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: <6D369475-A663-4DCA-A2BE-AE7F31B58B90@mac.com> References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com><"81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8 5 68581F"@PCdeOlivier><4EFDE393.9020708@meteo.fr><4EFDF204.9090609@meteo.fr> <6D369475-A663-4DCA-A2BE-AE7F31B58B90@mac.com> Message-ID: no, Ed, it was my idea, actually A1 & B2 (someone bid) are connected, same for A2 & B1 (all passes) in my mind, it's better to switch B1 & B2 (or A's) Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 22 > > On Dec 30, 2011, at 12:16 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > >> no, rather: >> >> A. End of auction >> The auction ends when: >> 1. all four players pass, but see Law 25. The hands are returned to the >> board without play. There shall not be a redeal. >> 2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in >> rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, >> but see Law 19d. >> >> B. End of auction period >> 1. If no player bids (see A1) the auction period ends when all four >> hands have been returned to the board. >> 2. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as >> in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of >> turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and >> the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. >> >> ok? > > Well, I see what you did, reversing the order of the two sub parts of 22B > so that each would refer to its corresponding number in A, but that's > apparently not what olivier was talking about. See his reply to me. > > Frankly, I don't think your change does much to clarify anything. Maybe > that's just me. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 6756 (20111230) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6756 (20111230) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Dec 31 10:42:32 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:42:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 22 In-Reply-To: References: <000001ccc6af$26e610d0$74b23270$@com><"81C6FFB2153E47A6A0E154AB8 5 68581F"@PCdeOlivier><4EFDE393.9020708@meteo.fr><4EFDF204.9090609@meteo.fr> <6D369475-A663-4DCA-A2BE-AE7F31B58B90@mac.com> Message-ID: <003e01ccc7a0$852b6450$8f822cf0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Yes it is, and since the normal situation is to make at least one bid during the auction I prefer to exchange A1 and A2. Thank you Olivier ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens olivier.beauvillain Verzonden: zaterdag 31 december 2011 9:20 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Law 22 no, Ed, it was my idea, actually A1 & B2 (someone bid) are connected, same for A2 & B1 (all passes) in my mind, it's better to switch B1 & B2 (or A's) Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 22 > > On Dec 30, 2011, at 12:16 PM, jean-pierre.rocafort wrote: > >> no, rather: >> >> A. End of auction >> The auction ends when: >> 1. all four players pass, but see Law 25. The hands are returned to the >> board without play. There shall not be a redeal. >> 2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in >> rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract, >> but see Law 19d. >> >> B. End of auction period >> 1. If no player bids (see A1) the auction period ends when all four >> hands have been returned to the board. >> 2. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as >> in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of >> turn, then see Law 54.) The interval between the end of the auction and >> the end of the auction period is designated the clarification period. >> >> ok? > > Well, I see what you did, reversing the order of the two sub parts of 22B > so that each would refer to its corresponding number in A, but that's > apparently not what olivier was talking about. See his reply to me. > > Frankly, I don't think your change does much to clarify anything. Maybe > that's just me. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base > des signatures de virus 6756 (20111230) __________ > > Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 6756 (20111230) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 31 13:27:55 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:27:55 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan References: Message-ID: <4EFF01FC.7090305@iinet.net.au> On 31/12/2011 8:27 PM, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Skype: grattan.endicott > ************************************************** > "Good men must not obey the laws too well." > [Ralph Waldo Emerson] > ""************************************************ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Jerry Fusselman > Sent: 26 December 2011 18:32 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] mispull log > > > [Law 85 A1] In determining the facts the Director shall base his view > on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with > the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. > The director is supposed to base his view not on whatever evidence he > garners, but on whatever evidence he is able to garner. The law gives > the director a standard that is much higher than Grattan's paraphrase. > (Is this the reason Grattan quoted Emerson here?) > > ................................................................ > +=+ Apart from marginal circumstance such as the degree of adjacancy > of the card pulled to the one intended, the Director has only his > experience, appreciation and judgement, by which to assess the > probabilities. As I see it there is no touchstone independent of his > subjective processes to decide the matter for the Director. > > In the world of cursive play there is a constant desire to replace the > judgement of officials with visual determination of the facts. Video > recording of bridge play could meet that desire in some situations as > it has in cricket and as the association football authorities have in > mind for limited experimentation. TDTV? bill > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sat Dec 31 13:57:42 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:57:42 -0000 Subject: [BLML] mispull log References: <4EFF01FC.7090305@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <4325564B0A724EA788303479FA3157B5@changeme1> Watching a Robson huddle in ultra slow motion HD would be enthralling. L Video recording of bridge play could meet that desire in some situations as it has in cricket and as the association football authorities have in mind for limited experimentation. TDTV? bill