From henk at ripe.net Tue Feb 1 01:01:01 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 1 02:09:12 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:09:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The famous Aussie poet C.J. Dennis, on the person who banned table tennis (ping pong) from Parliament House in 1930: Oh, his brows were wreathed with thunder As he gazed in stupid wonder, As he heard the sinful pinging and the sacrilegious pong. And he said, "Henceforth I ban it. If I knew who 'twas began it I would have him drawn and quartered, for 'tis obviously wrong." Then back adown the corridors, unbending as a god, Went the adamantine Usher of the Big Black Rod. Tony Musgrove: >>..... >>However I can remember giving rulings like "there is a big >>fight on BLML about this question, so I am not quite sure >>what the correct ruling is. I will rule thusly and ask >>the question on BLML". One then had to hope to obtain an >>answer from one of the gurus and filter out the garbage. >> >>I feel that newbie directors who join this list hoping to >>learn how the laws are to be applied are lucky to have >>Grattan's posts "you are wrong" (not in quite those words >>of course). We used to have David Stevenson, John Probst >>and quite a few others. Gordon Rainsford: >I suspect that most newbie directors now may well direct >their questions to the International Bridge Laws Forum, >moderated by David Stevenson, where they are more likely to >get a useful and practical answer. Grattan Endicott, 7th September 2005: +=+ I did read this statement with interest: " IBLF which is the perfect place to ask for help in rulings" and I wondered whether perfection lay in the lack of challenge to questionable guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes, it is risky for a newbie Director to seek advice from merely one guru wielding a Big Black Rod, as that newbie Director is unaware of the singular guru's blind spots.(1) But with several gurus, such blind spots are cancelled out. For example, the English guru David Stevenson is one of the many gurus (including the American guru, Ed Reppert) who contribute to general discussion online at the ABDA website. http://www.abda.org.au/forum/index.php#1 David S had a parochial blind spot, assuming that the English definition of "logical alternative" was necessarily identical to the Aussie definition. A newbie Director visiting IBLF would not have become aware of the error, as IBLF lacks any Aussie guru to correct David S. But on the ABDA website the error was indeed quickly corrected by an Aussie guru. The Australian Bridge Directors Association online fora are partially accessible to non-subscribers who wish to visit; plus there are also resources at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html Best wishes Richard Hills (1) A controversial personal view once belonging to that guru of gurus Grattan Endicott was not a blind spot as such -- Grattan was well aware that he was interpreting an ambiguity -- but at the next meeting of the WBF Laws Committee Grattan's colleagues collectively and officially overruled Grattan's personal view. Unlike another prolific blmler, Grattan accepted the umpire's decision and did NOT advocate on blml that a player should break an "unenforceable" rule. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 03:06:49 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:06:49 -0600 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <4D44BE3B.9070404@comcast.net> References: <4D44BE3B.9070404@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Robert Park wrote: > My partners & I play Capp/1MX (Cappelletti over 1 of a major doubled), > and we have never had a squawk, either from players or directors. > (2-level transfers below 2M, with 1NT = relay to 2C) Yes, interesting. Sometimes I notice something GCC illegal on a convention card. For example, their defense to 1NT has 2D meaning either hearts of the minors. This is illegal under the GCC, because competitive7 allows defenses to "natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit." So the 2D bid must show at least one known suit. Any I mentioned this to the players, and they told me, and I believe them that, "We've never problem with it, and we have played it for years." I guess it is in my interest to call the director only when they use the illegal method and let the other opponents fend for themselves. Calling the director before the round for this seems almost unethical, because it could upset them and the poison the atmosphere at the table. However, what it also means, is that you might be able to play an illegal method for a long time in the ACBL if none of your opponents bring it to a director's attention. Lack of a problem from players is not proof that it is legal. But I am almost sure that Robert Park's method is GCC legal. Jerry Fusselman From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 1 03:18:15 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:18:15 -0800 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:06:49 CST." Message-ID: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Jerry wrote: > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Robert Park wrote: > > My partners & I play Capp/1MX (Cappelletti over 1 of a major doubled), > > and we have never had a squawk, either from players or directors. > > (2-level transfers below 2M, with 1NT = relay to 2C) > > Yes, interesting. > > Sometimes I notice something GCC illegal on a convention card. For > example, their defense to 1NT has 2D meaning either hearts of the > minors. This is illegal under the GCC, because competitive7 allows > defenses to "natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that > direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one > known suit." So the 2D bid must show at least one known suit. > > Any I mentioned this to the players, and they told me, and I believe > them that, "We've never problem with it, and we have played it for > years." Unfortunately, this particular case is special. Although conventions like this (including Suction) were made illegal on the GCC, there was quite an outcry when they were removed, and if my recollection is correct, the result was that the ACBL made it clear that districts were permitted to allow these conventions at their tournaments, even in GCC events. There may have been a requirement that the tournament advertising made this clear. Many districts took advantage of this, and as a result, Suction was still legal in GCC events in those districts. The situation may have changed several years ago, though; I recall Stu Goodgold saying something about this on rec.games.bridge. I don't recall the exact details. But it may be that districts no longer have that permission. My recollection is very fuzzy, however. In any case, though, I think that this may be a situation where perhaps your players really didn't have a problem (in the past) with this convention even though it's illegal on the GCC, because the tournament organizers decided to allow it. This is a one-of-a-kind situation, though, affecting only this one particular restriction in the GCC. -- Adam From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Feb 1 03:48:12 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:48:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D47746C.2010500@comcast.net> On 1/31/11 9:18 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Jerry wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Robert Park wrote: >>> My partners& I play Capp/1MX (Cappelletti over 1 of a major doubled), >>> and we have never had a squawk, either from players or directors. >>> (2-level transfers below 2M, with 1NT = relay to 2C) >> Yes, interesting. >> >> Sometimes I notice something GCC illegal on a convention card. For >> example, their defense to 1NT has 2D meaning either hearts of the >> minors. This is illegal under the GCC, because competitive7 allows >> defenses to "natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that >> direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one >> known suit." So the 2D bid must show at least one known suit. >> >> Any I mentioned this to the players, and they told me, and I believe >> them that, "We've never problem with it, and we have played it for >> years." > Unfortunately, this particular case is special. Although conventions > like this (including Suction) were made illegal on the GCC, there was > quite an outcry when they were removed, and if my recollection is > correct, the result was that the ACBL made it clear that districts > were permitted to allow these conventions at their tournaments, even > in GCC events. There may have been a requirement that the tournament > advertising made this clear. Many districts took advantage of this, > and as a result, Suction was still legal in GCC events in those > districts. The situation may have changed several years ago, though; > I recall Stu Goodgold saying something about this on > rec.games.bridge. I don't recall the exact details. But it may be > that districts no longer have that permission. My recollection is > very fuzzy, however. > > In any case, though, I think that this may be a situation where > perhaps your players really didn't have a problem (in the past) with > this convention even though it's illegal on the GCC, because the > tournament organizers decided to allow it. This is a one-of-a-kind > situation, though, affecting only this one particular restriction in > the GCC. > > -- Adam Well...it's an artificial defense to an artificial call. What makes you say it's GCC illegal? --bp From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 1 03:56:21 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:56:21 -0800 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:48:12 EST." <4D47746C.2010500@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20110201025625.B8C47A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> > On 1/31/11 9:18 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Jerry wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >>> My partners& I play Capp/1MX (Cappelletti over 1 of a major doubled), > >>> and we have never had a squawk, either from players or directors. > >>> (2-level transfers below 2M, with 1NT = relay to 2C) > >> Yes, interesting. > >> > >> Sometimes I notice something GCC illegal on a convention card. For > >> example, their defense to 1NT has 2D meaning either hearts of the > >> minors. This is illegal under the GCC, because competitive7 allows > >> defenses to "natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that > >> direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one > >> known suit." So the 2D bid must show at least one known suit. > >> > >> Any I mentioned this to the players, and they told me, and I believe > >> them that, "We've never problem with it, and we have played it for > >> years." > > > > Unfortunately, this particular case is special. Although conventions > > like this (including Suction) were made illegal on the GCC, there was > > quite an outcry when they were removed, and if my recollection is > > correct, the result was that the ACBL made it clear that districts > > were permitted to allow these conventions at their tournaments, even > > in GCC events. There may have been a requirement that the tournament > > advertising made this clear. Many districts took advantage of this, > > and as a result, Suction was still legal in GCC events in those > > districts. The situation may have changed several years ago, though; > > I recall Stu Goodgold saying something about this on > > rec.games.bridge. I don't recall the exact details. But it may be > > that districts no longer have that permission. My recollection is > > very fuzzy, however. > > > > In any case, though, I think that this may be a situation where > > perhaps your players really didn't have a problem (in the past) with > > this convention even though it's illegal on the GCC, because the > > tournament organizers decided to allow it. This is a one-of-a-kind > > situation, though, affecting only this one particular restriction in > > the GCC. > > > > -- Adam > > Well...it's an artificial defense to an artificial call. What makes you > say it's GCC illegal? Opening 1NT is a natural call, not an artificial call. I was referring to the auction Jerry discussed. If you thought I was talking about a different auction, sorry for any confusion. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 1 04:04:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:04:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1PjRxE-16nFbM0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >Say the question is: "2 plus 2 makes ?". Whatever BLMLers >give as an answer it is acceptable / necessary / mandatory to >tell them they're wrong, if the answer they give is not "4". Richard Hills: No, because 2 plus 2 makes zero. In modular (colloquially known as "clock") arithmetic there is a highest number after which the numbers return to zero. Assume such a clock has four integers: zero, one, two and three. Advancing the hand of that clock, from its initial setting of two, by two spaces does indeed result in a new setting of zero. Wrongness or rightness of 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 + 2 = 0 depends upon whether the premise of Modular Arithmetic is adopted, or upon whether the premise of Standard American is adopted. So standard Americans are necessarily wrong only if their conclusions do not follow from their premises. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 04:26:49 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:26:49 -0600 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <20110201025625.B8C47A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <4D47746C.2010500@comcast.net> <20110201025625.B8C47A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Why, of course, they wanted to play a Suction defense to 1NT! I had missed that. Anyway, Suction appears to me legal against an artificial 1C (even a "might be short" nonforcing 1C opening). It seems also legal against any opening 2C or higher by a simple reading of the GCC. But it seems clearly illegal against 1NT, unless the strange exemption Adam mentions is sometimes in effect. Jerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110201/78bd0415/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 1 04:50:26 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:50:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: References: <4D44BE3B.9070404@comcast.net> Message-ID: <8C4AB3E106A34795B21E7BD7F255ADD0@erdos> "Jerry Fusselman" writes: > Sometimes I notice something GCC illegal on a convention card. For > example, their defense to 1NT has 2D meaning either hearts of the > minors. This is illegal under the GCC, because competitive7 allows > defenses to "natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that > direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one > known suit." So the 2D bid must show at least one known suit. > > Any I mentioned this to the players, and they told me, and I believe > them that, "We've never problem with it, and we have played it for > years." In the Washington area, directors mention this specific convention before some GCC events, particularly those which often attract players who regularly play Flight A (where the MidChart is often legal). > I guess it is in my interest to call the director only when > they use the illegal method and let the other opponents fend for > themselves. Calling the director before the round for this seems > almost unethical, because it could upset them and the poison the > atmosphere at the table. And I once checked with a director when I saw the convention being played by my KO opponents. We were in a high enough bracket that it was legal, but in a KO, it was necessary to check before playing 24 boards. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 04:54:50 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:54:50 -0600 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: References: <4D47746C.2010500@comcast.net> <20110201025625.B8C47A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Sorry that I made a mistake: Their 2D overcall of a natural 1NT showed either hearts or the *black suits* (not the minors). Yes, I imagine they wanted to use Suction over 1NT. Here is a question I will soon be asking the ACBL Rulings department (by phone this time, for it is hard to wait for a month for each answer): The rule from the GCC is that artificial direct-call defenses to "natural notrump opening bids [...] other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit." But that refers only to artificial bids. Natural bids are okay. I want to know whether over 1NT, a 2NT overcall can show a very strong hand (perhaps 18+ HCP) with fewer than four spades. Basically, 2NT would a catchall bid for all very strong hands with fewer than four spades. It is almost natural in the sense that it is profoundly nonforcing, but it would have that extra negative inference if I had things my way. Anyway, is this GCC legal or not? What do you predict? And if you think it is GCC illegal, then would you allow a 3NT natural overcall to a 1NT opening to possibly have a singleton ace or king? Jerry Fusselman From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 05:04:19 2011 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:04:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] judgement In-Reply-To: <4D44246D.2010506@aol.com> References: <4D44246D.2010506@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D478643.6020703@gmail.com> On 1/29/2011 9:30 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > You are playing with a new partner and have few agreements. One is that > non vul an opening weak two can be 5-10 points and always(at least) a 6 > card suit. He opens 2 hearts. You hold: > > AK954 > 4 > AKQ87 > 54 > > What is your bid? > > Part 2: If you have agreed to play Ogust and he shows a minimum opening > with a bad trump suit does this alter your decision? If so, to what? > > Thanks, JE Pass. 2S might play better, but can't stop there so the suit is lost (bad if partner holds three). Not going anywhere near game on this, due to probable misfit. Part 2: On minimum Ogust, I might try 3D IF we had the agreement that it was non-forcing and that partner could drop back to hearts with no support. If I'm not playing that, a simple 3H and wishing I had passed initially will work as well as anything. Hirsch From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 05:12:01 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:12:01 -0600 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <8C4AB3E106A34795B21E7BD7F255ADD0@erdos> References: <4D44BE3B.9070404@comcast.net> <8C4AB3E106A34795B21E7BD7F255ADD0@erdos> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:50 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > In the Washington area, directors mention this specific convention before some > GCC events, particularly those which often attract players who regularly play > Flight A (where the MidChart is often legal). > Yes, Suction against a natural 1NT looks fine for MidChart, and this may have been was a flight A event (where MidChart is usually or always allowed in nonclub games). *However*, the opponents probably had no written defense ready and nothing whatsoever was prealerted, so the question as to whether the event was MidChart or not is moot. They made it illegal even if it might have been legal with better preparation on their part. Jerry Fusselman From hirsch9000 at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 05:21:17 2011 From: hirsch9000 at gmail.com (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 23:21:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] pass out of rotation? In-Reply-To: <4D466B85.9070407@skynet.be> References: <4D45F808.803@nifty.com> <4D466B85.9070407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D478A3D.9000001@gmail.com> On 1/31/2011 2:57 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sebastian wrote: >> On 31 January 2011 10:45, Robert Geller wrote: >>> South is dealer. North places a pass card on the table at exactly the >>> same instant as South places a 1NT card on the table. How should this >>> situation be adjudicated? >>> >> L33: "A call made simultaneously with one made by the player whose >> turn it was to >> call is deemed to be a subsequent call." >> >> So North's pass is deemed to be subsequent to the legal 1NT opening, >> and L30B1 applies (North must pass at their next turn to call, >> assuming the pass isn't accepted). >> > There is one extra bit to the ruling: > > Since North's pass out of turn was not actually done after South's 1NT, > it shows (illegally) that he does not have an opening, not that he has > nothing to speak over 1NT with. SO he has a maximum of 10 points, not a > mere 7. That is UI to South, who will be bound by this not to reopen > when opponents interfere. Of course North may then bid again. > Please elaborate on your logic. The UI that N is below opening strength suggests that pass might work better than a protective reopening call. The fact that N doesn't hold the hand that S would be hoping for is UI, and S cannot use it. The UI forces S to reopen if N might have had to conceal a strong hand after interference. After UI, you make the call that is NOT demonstrably suggested, not the one that is suggested. An upper limit on N's hand does not stop S from reopening, since it reduces the probability that the reopening call will succeed. A LOWER limit on N's strength would have the opposite effect, since UI to that effect would now suggest a reopening call would work better than pass. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 1 05:45:17 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:45:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D401759.8090506@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >..... >And then I ask him again: what does the TD do when a player >tells him "I did not tell my opponents my guess, Richard Hills: If an experienced partnership conceals an implicit understanding by renaming it a "guess", then refuses to describe that so-called "guess" (a commonplace coffee-house by many ACBL expert partnerships of the 1970s), then under the new 2007 Lawbook such coffee-housing partnerships are subject to penalty under Law 40C3(b). Herman De Wael: >but I gave him all the elements needed to draw the same >logical conclusion, it is not my fault if my opponent cannot >draw a bridge logic conclusion." Law 75C: ..... Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement ..... Richard Hills: If, however, the player concerned is truly guessing, with not any implicit partnership understanding, then Law 75C states that despite the unrevealed guess the player has not committed MI. Herman De Wael: >I'll tell you what I do when I'm the TD: I rule MI. > >Which is why I urge Eric -and all players- to tell them your >guesses. Richard Hills: Merely because an idiosyncratic Director intentionally violates Law 75C is insufficient reason for players to give unnecessary extraneous information to prevent that Director's incompetence. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 05:57:22 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:57:22 -0600 Subject: [BLML] What the GCC allows when competing over an artificial 1C opening In-Reply-To: <972CCAE4-ADEE-4531-96E4-D15DDA4CEA68@starpower.net> References: <4D458560.2090603@comcast.net> <4D467AFC.9010804@ulb.ac.be> <972CCAE4-ADEE-4531-96E4-D15DDA4CEA68@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jan 31, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> But the problem is more fundamental : I think that *any* defensive >> method against over a strong club has as main purpose the >> destruction of their lines of communication. >> Whence the definition is impossible to apply efficiently. > > What definition is that? ?The ACBL prohibits agreements "whose > primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods", but I have > never seen anything like an official explanation of what that's > supposed to mean. ?Has anyone? > The ACBL does not always think that definitions and official explanations are worth the bother. The best that I have found so far is that the phrase "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods" implies that "to be allowed, the call must show something of value about the hand, such as suits or high-card strength." However, after my correspondence with Mike Flader, high-card strength appears to be deemed less important than suit distribution (otherwise, how could b and e be deemed destructive?) I should really ask the ACBL whether or not lead-directing calls helps make the defensive bid less destructive. Jerry Fusselman From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Feb 1 09:53:07 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:53:07 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524EF83B-C491-4DE5-97ED-F7506CC4BAAE@btinternet.com> On 1 Feb 2011, at 03:04, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > No, because 2 plus 2 makes zero. > > In modular (colloquially known as "clock") arithmetic there is > a highest number after which the numbers return to zero. > > Assume such a clock has four integers: zero, one, two and > three. Advancing the hand of that clock, from its initial > setting of two, by two spaces does indeed result in a new > setting of zero. And of course 2+2=1 in a three-table Mitchell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110201/f70d7f2a/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 1 10:28:39 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:28:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <524EF83B-C491-4DE5-97ED-F7506CC4BAAE@btinternet.com> References: <524EF83B-C491-4DE5-97ED-F7506CC4BAAE@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001501cbc1f2$693b4710$3bb1d530$@no> There is a tale about a math professor who first time he entered the room with a new class walked up to the blackboard without uttering a single word, just chalked up 2 2 = and turned to the class with a querying expression on his face. After a while with uncertainty a hand was reluctantly raised, he nodded. "Four?" - Headshake. Another hand was raised, "zero?" - Headshake. "One?" - Headshake. "Twentytwo?" - Headshake. And so it went on, every suggestion was met with headshake. After a while no more hands came up, so eventually he opened his mouth with the correct answer: What is the problem? The lesson? Don't go looking for an answer before you know the problem. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: 1. februar 2011 09:53 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 1 Feb 2011, at 03:04, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: No, because 2 plus 2 makes zero. In modular (colloquially known as "clock") arithmetic there is a highest number after which the numbers return to zero. Assume such a clock has four integers: zero, one, two and three. Advancing the hand of that clock, from its initial setting of two, by two spaces does indeed result in a new setting of zero. And of course 2+2=1 in a three-table Mitchell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110201/60e0a05c/attachment-0001.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Feb 1 10:29:17 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:29:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Exam question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <524EF83B-C491-4DE5-97ED-F7506CC4BAAE@btinternet.com> References: <524EF83B-C491-4DE5-97ED-F7506CC4BAAE@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4D47D26D.70805@meteo.fr> Gordon Rainsford a ?crit : > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 03:04, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> No, because 2 plus 2 makes zero. >> >> In modular (colloquially known as "clock") arithmetic there is >> a highest number after which the numbers return to zero. >> >> Assume such a clock has four integers: zero, one, two and >> three. Advancing the hand of that clock, from its initial >> setting of two, by two spaces does indeed result in a new >> setting of zero. > > And of course 2+2=1 in a three-table Mitchell. > you mean in Z/3Z circular group? 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 henk at ripe.net Tue Feb 1 11:07:55 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:07:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201102011007.p11A7tJQ032632@dog.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for January 2011 Posts From ----- ---- 98 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 64 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 63 ehaa (at) starpower.net 61 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 57 svenpran (at) online.no 56 blml (at) arcor.de 54 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 43 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 23 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 19 swillner (at) nhcc.net 16 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 15 david.j.barton (at) lineone.net 15 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 12 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 9 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 8 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 8 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 7 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 6 l.kalbarczyk (at) gmail.com 6 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 6 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 6 bmeadows666 (at) gmail.com 6 adam (at) irvine.com 5 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 5 darkbystry (at) wp.pl 4 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 4 sater (at) xs4all.nl 3 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 3 henk (at) ripe.net 3 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 2 vitoldbr (at) yandex.ru 2 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com 2 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 2 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com 2 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 2 adam (at) tameware.com 1 yuen.sebastian (at) gmail.com 1 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 1 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 1 lumenco (at) ono.com 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 B.Schelen (at) Claranet.NL From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 1 11:44:08 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:44:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D47E3F8.1050801@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/02/2011 5:45, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Herman De Wael: > >> ..... >> And then I ask him again: what does the TD do when a player >> tells him "I did not tell my opponents my guess, > Richard Hills: > > If an experienced partnership conceals an implicit > understanding by renaming it a "guess", then refuses to > describe that so-called "guess" (a commonplace coffee-house by > many ACBL expert partnerships of the 1970s), then under the new > 2007 Lawbook such coffee-housing partnerships are subject to > penalty under Law 40C3(b). > > Herman De Wael: > >> but I gave him all the elements needed to draw the same >> logical conclusion, it is not my fault if my opponent cannot >> draw a bridge logic conclusion." > Law 75C: > > ..... > Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive > an accurate description of the North-South agreement > ..... > > Richard Hills: > > If, however, the player concerned is truly guessing, with not > any implicit partnership understanding, then Law 75C states > that despite the unrevealed guess the player has not committed > MI. AG : this is absolutely right. Remember, however, that if there is any doubt the TD shall judge that there was withheld information. Old bad ESP again. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 1 12:29:36 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:29:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <304910.74636.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> [Richard Hills] If an experienced partnership conceals an implicit understanding by renaming it a "guess", then refuses to describe that so-called "guess" (a commonplace coffee-house by many ACBL expert partnerships of the 1970s), then under the new 2007 Lawbook such coffee-housing partnerships are subject to penalty under Law 40C3(b). [Nigel] 40C3(b) is weak - it punishes only *repeat* offences! In the UK, your so-called "coffee-house" is normal practice in National events for calls not described on opponents' system-card. Opponents seem genuinely confused by the law. I would be grateful, Richard, if you can answer a question that I have posed, here and elsewhere, several times: If opponents ask about your partner's call, how should you answer when unsure of its systemic meaning? For typical players in my experience, it is *always* a guess because they are *never* 100% certain. Specifically, at what level of confidence should they advance a guess? 1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 99%, or what? Below that confidence-level, what should they say? Do you think the 2018 or 2028 law-book will explicitly address such difficult practical issues? IMO, the law-book should stipulate that if you don't know for sure, then you must still guess -- but not hint that it is a guess -- and accept any MI penalty -- unless you are playing standard system. BLMLers seem to resent harping on about such fundamental problems -- perhaps because a resolution might curtail endlessly repetitive disputes about cases, on which it would be easier to rule, if the law were simpler and clearer. Whether or not Richard is able to answer, however, I'll give up for a bit :) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 1 15:15:52 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:15:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What the GCC allows when competing over an artificial 1C opening In-Reply-To: <000001cbc15c$9a2bb9e0$ce832da0$@no> References: <4D458560.2090603@comcast.net> <4D467AFC.9010804@ulb.ac.be> <972CCAE4-ADEE-4531-96E4-D15DDA4CEA68@starpower.net> <000001cbc15c$9a2bb9e0$ce832da0$@no> Message-ID: <6D29F7F8-9504-40DA-94A3-63D5DC8814DE@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> What definition is that? The ACBL prohibits agreements "whose >> primary purpose >> is to destroy the opponents' methods", but I have never seen >> anything like an >> official explanation of what that's supposed to mean. Has anyone? > > There cannot be any such definition for the simple reason that it > would be > meaningless. > > Bridge is a game in which the purpose is to obtain an as high a > score as > possible on each board (where net scores to opponents count as > negative > scores). > > Any agreement that aids to achieve this goal is constructive for > own side > and as a consequence destructive for opposing side. > > This is the prime purpose with for instance pre-emptive and > sacrifice bids, > but I would like to see any NBO trying to prohibit me (holding an > otherwise > valueless hand with say 9 small spades) from bidding 4S over > opponents' 1H > opening bid in order to make it difficult for them to find their best > contgract? > > The primary purpose of my bid in this case is of course to destroy the > opponents' methods. If my undertrick penalty is higher than the score > opponents can make in their contract I have lost, otherwise I have > won. It > is simple as that. Exactly. Duplicate bridge is a zero-sum game, which means that there is no difference whatsoever between an action designed to increase your score and an action designed to reduce the opponents' score. > What is meaningful is to require for instance that a call cannot > legally be > made completely at random, i.e. a 1S bid that can be made with any > distribution and/or any strength without any restriction should not be > legal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 1 15:32:37 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:32:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] What the GCC allows when competing over an artificial 1C opening In-Reply-To: <4D46EAED.7060608@ulb.ac.be> References: <20110131163844.F3039A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> <4D46EAED.7060608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <11E9F5E5-699D-4AA7-8BFF-2D7084C289C9@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 31/01/2011 17:38, Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > >> Point taken. If there were a list of specific conventions that were >> or were not allowed over a strong club, and the list said that >> certain >> bids that were OK as opening bids were not allowed as overcalls, I >> might think it was a dumb rule, but at least the organization is >> within their rights to make rules like that. >> >> However, the argument here isn't about whether the GCC's rules are >> wise or not; the argument is that, given that the GCC rules are what >> they are, whether an overcall that shows 16+ falls within the rules. >> And I don't see how a bid that is allowed as an opening bid can be >> considered a bid whose "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' >> methods" when used as an overcall. > > AG : there is no contradicti?on up to now. > > Abid might have a destructive purpose and be allowed as an opening bid > (e.g. Multi). In that case, it might *both* be allowed as an > opening and > be destructive as an overcall. But that's not the case here. The regulation in question forbids, "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents? methods." That's all it says. It makes no distinction between opening bids and overcalls. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 1 15:59:51 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:59:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <85C2C643-4F3A-4BCE-BFA2-10504CB5E217@starpower.net> On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Jerry wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> My partners & I play Capp/1MX (Cappelletti over 1 of a major >>> doubled), >>> and we have never had a squawk, either from players or directors. >>> (2-level transfers below 2M, with 1NT = relay to 2C) >> >> Yes, interesting. >> >> Sometimes I notice something GCC illegal on a convention card. For >> example, their defense to 1NT has 2D meaning either hearts of the >> minors. This is illegal under the GCC, because competitive7 allows >> defenses to "natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that >> direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one >> known suit." So the 2D bid must show at least one known suit. >> >> Any I mentioned this to the players, and they told me, and I believe >> them that, "We've never problem with it, and we have played it for >> years." > > Unfortunately, this particular case is special. Although conventions > like this (including Suction) were made illegal on the GCC, there was > quite an outcry when they were removed, and if my recollection is > correct, the result was that the ACBL made it clear that districts > were permitted to allow these conventions at their tournaments, even > in GCC events. There may have been a requirement that the tournament > advertising made this clear. Many districts took advantage of this, > and as a result, Suction was still legal in GCC events in those > districts. The situation may have changed several years ago, though; > I recall Stu Goodgold saying something about this on > rec.games.bridge. I don't recall the exact details. But it may be > that districts no longer have that permission. My recollection is > very fuzzy, however. > > In any case, though, I think that this may be a situation where > perhaps your players really didn't have a problem (in the past) with > this convention even though it's illegal on the GCC, because the > tournament organizers decided to allow it. This is a one-of-a-kind > situation, though, affecting only this one particular restriction in > the GCC. Adam's recollection is correct. Districts are allowed to permit any non-GCC conventions at their tournaments provided that they announce the special conditions in all pre-tournament advertising. The Mid-Atlantic Bridge Conference (Districts 6 and 7; Maryland, D.C., Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and eastern Tennessee) permits the entire mid-chart in all of its regionally rated events. This policy has been thoroughly polled, and is overwhelmingly popular with our players, many of whom avoid playing outside the conference when they can so as to avoid being forced to cripple their bidding methods. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Tue Feb 1 16:12:24 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:12:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Out of Turn Faced-down Opening Lead In-Reply-To: <000601cbc190$354dbe90$9fe93bb0$@no> References: <000001cbc163$027c3a50$0774aef0$@com> <1Pjwyb-15p1tI0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <000601cbc190$354dbe90$9fe93bb0$@no> Message-ID: <001201cbc222$6edf5dc0$4c9e1940$@com> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > From: "laval dubreuil" > > Law 54A allows declarer spread his hand after a faced opening lead out > > of turn, becoming dummy. > > What is the ruling when declarer spreads his hand after an out of turn > > faced-down opening lead ? > > I would apply Law 24 (see Law 22 B1); and I would consider Law 23 (less > probable) and Law 12 A1. Precisely ! ________________________________________________________________________ As I understand your ruling: There has been three subsequent passes in rotation, the auction is over but the auction period ends when an opening lead is faced (Law 22B1). So cards were exposed by declarer prior the play period and cards must be returned to declarer's hand (Law 24). The opening lead would be then resumed from correct hand (according to which Law ?). Law 12A1 may be used if the director judges that the Laws do not provide indemnity to the NOS. The first offense was the OOT faced-down lead, but declarer made a subsequent irregularity, spreading his cards before a faced opening lead was made. Please, tell me more about NOS, OS and UI in this case. Can Law 12C2a be used? Is there any Law in TFLB that could be used to allow the OOT lead be faced-up, exposed hand becoming dummy ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 1 17:15:33 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:15:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D4831A5.5000602@aol.com> Could someone please supply me with a description of "suction" or name a site where I can find it? Ciao, JE Am 01.02.2011 03:18, schrieb Adam Beneschan: > Jerry wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Robert Park wrote: >>> My partners& I play Capp/1MX (Cappelletti over 1 of a major doubled), >>> and we have never had a squawk, either from players or directors. >>> (2-level transfers below 2M, with 1NT = relay to 2C) >> Yes, interesting. >> >> Sometimes I notice something GCC illegal on a convention card. For >> example, their defense to 1NT has 2D meaning either hearts of the >> minors. This is illegal under the GCC, because competitive7 allows >> defenses to "natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that >> direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one >> known suit." So the 2D bid must show at least one known suit. >> >> Any I mentioned this to the players, and they told me, and I believe >> them that, "We've never problem with it, and we have played it for >> years." > Unfortunately, this particular case is special. Although conventions > like this (including Suction) were made illegal on the GCC, there was > quite an outcry when they were removed, and if my recollection is > correct, the result was that the ACBL made it clear that districts > were permitted to allow these conventions at their tournaments, even > in GCC events. There may have been a requirement that the tournament > advertising made this clear. Many districts took advantage of this, > and as a result, Suction was still legal in GCC events in those > districts. The situation may have changed several years ago, though; > I recall Stu Goodgold saying something about this on > rec.games.bridge. I don't recall the exact details. But it may be > that districts no longer have that permission. My recollection is > very fuzzy, however. > > In any case, though, I think that this may be a situation where > perhaps your players really didn't have a problem (in the past) with > this convention even though it's illegal on the GCC, because the > tournament organizers decided to allow it. This is a one-of-a-kind > situation, though, affecting only this one particular restriction in > the GCC. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 1 17:19:20 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (me) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 10:19:20 -0600 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <85C2C643-4F3A-4BCE-BFA2-10504CB5E217@starpower.net> References: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> <85C2C643-4F3A-4BCE-BFA2-10504CB5E217@starpower.net> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Adam's recollection is correct. Districts are allowed to permit any > non-GCC conventions at their tournaments provided that they announce > the special conditions in all pre-tournament advertising. > > The Mid-Atlantic Bridge Conference (Districts 6 and 7; Maryland, > D.C., Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and eastern Tennessee) permits > the entire mid-chart in all of its regionally rated events. This > policy has been thoroughly polled, and is overwhelmingly popular with > our players, many of whom avoid playing outside the conference when > they can so as to avoid being forced to cripple their bidding methods. > In such cases, are pre-alerts and written defenses required? Jerry From henk at ripe.net Tue Feb 1 17:22:23 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:22:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <4D4831A5.5000602@aol.com> References: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> <4D4831A5.5000602@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D48333F.4040005@ripe.net> On 01/02/2011 17:15, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Could someone please supply me with a description of "suction" or name a > site where I can find it? Ciao, JE It is a defense against 1NT The basic idea is that a bid shows 1 suiter in the next higher suit, or a 2 suiter in the 2 suits above that. 2NT shows a 2 suiter that cannot be bid otherwise. 1NT-2C: Diamonds or (hearts & spades) 2D: Hearts or (spades & clubs) 2H: Spades or (clubs & diamonds) 2S: Clubs or (diamonds & hearts) 2NT: (clubs & hearts) or (spades & diamonds) There are variations around, such as X to show the mixed 2 suiter (or even C or (D&H)). The convention is also used against strong clubs, starting from X. Responses: (1NT)-2C-(P)-2D/H/S are all pass/correct. 2H/S implies a D fit. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 1 17:22:56 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:22:56 -0800 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:15:33 +0100." <4D4831A5.5000602@aol.com> Message-ID: <20110201162257.6B0A1A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Could someone please supply me with a description of "suction" or name a > site where I can find it? Ciao, JE Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suction_convention . -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 1 17:29:54 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:29:54 -0800 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:12:01 CST." Message-ID: <20110201162955.4771EA8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Jerry wrote: > Yes, Suction against a natural 1NT looks fine for MidChart, and this > may have been was a flight A event (where MidChart is usually or > always allowed in nonclub games). *However*, the opponents probably > had no written defense ready and nothing whatsoever was prealerted, so > the question as to whether the event was MidChart or not is moot. A written defense is not required for Suction. However, pre-alerts are required, and a written description of the method must be available. See http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf . I don't know the answer to your question about whether pre-alerting is required if a Mid-Chart convention is allowed in an event that is otherwise a GCC event, but I think the answer is probably yes, based on the wording in the above PDF file. -- Adam From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Feb 1 17:34:35 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:34:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <4D48333F.4040005@ripe.net> References: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> <4D4831A5.5000602@aol.com> <4D48333F.4040005@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4D48361B.9070101@nhcc.net> On 2/1/2011 11:22 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > [Suction] is also used against strong clubs, starting > from X. Relevant to present discussion: in the ACBL, Suction is GCC-legal (legal in virtually all games) over strong club but Midchart (much less frequently legal) over opening 1NT. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 1 18:04:40 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:04:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Out_of_Turn_Faced-down_Opening_Lead?= In-Reply-To: <001201cbc222$6edf5dc0$4c9e1940$@com> References: <001201cbc222$6edf5dc0$4c9e1940$@com> Message-ID: <1PkJei-1ABKy00@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: "laval dubreuil" > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > From: "laval dubreuil" > > > Law 54A allows declarer spread his hand after a faced opening lead > > > out of turn, becoming dummy. > > > What is the ruling when declarer spreads his hand after an out of > > > turn faced-down opening lead ? > > > > > > > I would apply Law 24 (see Law 22 B1); and I would consider Law 23 > > (less probable) and Law 12 A1. > > > > Precisely ! > ________________________________________________________________________ > As I understand your ruling: > There has been three subsequent passes in rotation, the auction is > over but the auction period ends when an opening lead is faced (Law > 22B1). > So cards were exposed by declarer prior the play period and cards must > be returned to declarer's hand (Law 24). The opening lead would be > then resumed from correct hand (according to which Law ?). Law 41 A > Law 12A1 may be used if the director judges that the Laws do not > provide indemnity to the NOS. The first offense was the OOT faced-down > lead, but declarer made a subsequent irregularity, spreading his cards > before a faced opening lead was made. > > Please, tell me more about NOS, OS and UI in this case. for declarer showing his cards: NOS: OOT face-down leader and partner OS: declarer and dummy Law 24 begins: "When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player?s _own_ error [...]" and goes on with "[...] Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non-offending side but unauthorized for the offending side." > Can Law 12C2a be used? I can't imagine, why it should be used. > Is there any Law in TFLB that could be used to allow the OOT lead be > faced-up, exposed hand becoming dummy ? not in my book. ... But ... reading Laws 24, 41 A, 47 E2, 54 C again and again, I think I may have to change my ruling on part two 24 hours ago. Law 24 talks about "auction period" whereas Law 54 C says: "[...] except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction [...]" In the OP dummy exposed some cards after the LOOT was made face down, so the auction (though not the auction period) had ended and although dummy's cards were subject to Law 24 they were not exposed during the auction and declarer has to accept the lead - which has to be faced then (??). Still Law 12 A1 applies, if declarer's side is damaged by the OOT lead. Most of my unsureness (about the correct application of this laws) arises because of the wording of Law 54 C. 54 A and B and D deal with "_faced_ OLOOT", whereas 54 C seems to deal with _any_ OLOOT. HELP !! From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 1 21:38:31 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:38:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: References: <20110201021819.A2126A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> <85C2C643-4F3A-4BCE-BFA2-10504CB5E217@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:19 AM, me wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Adam's recollection is correct. Districts are allowed to permit any >> non-GCC conventions at their tournaments provided that they announce >> the special conditions in all pre-tournament advertising. >> >> The Mid-Atlantic Bridge Conference (Districts 6 and 7; Maryland, >> D.C., Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and eastern Tennessee) permits >> the entire mid-chart in all of its regionally rated events. This >> policy has been thoroughly polled, and is overwhelmingly popular with >> our players, many of whom avoid playing outside the conference when >> they can so as to avoid being forced to cripple their bidding >> methods. > > In such cases, are pre-alerts and written defenses required? Sure. I'm not up on the details, but the MABC plays all of its regionally rated events by the convention-chart rules that other districts, in general, reserve only for events with no upper masterpoint limit. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 1 23:48:54 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 09:48:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <304910.74636.qm@web28516.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, 21st January 2011: >When asked the meaning of a call, the law says you must not >speculate gratuitously. Richard Hills: No, the Law says that you must give a correct explanation of the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Nigel Guthrie, 21st January 2011: >If you aren't certain (and that must be the case for most >calls and almost all players), you must answer "unsure". Richard Hills: No, the Law says that you must give a correct explanation of the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. "Unsure" is never a correct explanation. "Zero understanding" is occasionally correct for new partnerships. But for long- standing partnerships of two millennia (such as Ali-Hills), the correct explanation of an obscure pre-existing mutual partnership understanding might be "We do not have an explicit pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, but we do have an implicit pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, due to a very strong analogy with a parallel understanding." Nigel Guthrie, 21st January 2011: >IMO, this is silly. The law actively inhibits disclosure. Richard Hills: No, the Lawbook merely recognises that some players might unintentionally infract Law 20 and/or Law 40, and hence empowers the Director to rectify any consequent damage to the non-offending side. Nigel Guthrie, 21st January 2011: >Even I will guess right 80% of the time and younger >players in long-term regular partnerships will guess >right more than 90% of the time. Richard Hills: If the young player Hills is confident(1) in explaining the relay response of Ali, that is not a guess, but rather that is an unintentional MI infraction if Hills happens to be wrong (hence Hills has not committed a Law 72B1 "must not" infraction -- compare and contrast young player Gottcheiner infracting Law 72B1 by intentionally giving MI due to failing to make a required Alert which young player Gottcheiner was confident(1) was required). What's the problem? The problem seems to me is that the current Laws are adequate to meet the concerns of young player Guthrie, but because the current Laws are not written in plain English young player Guthrie is unaware of this fact. Best wishes Richard Hills: (1) What do I mean by "confident"? Nigel Guthrie, 1st February 2011: >>If opponents ask about your partner's call, how should >>you answer when unsure of its systemic meaning? For >>typical players in my experience, it is *always* a guess >>because they are *never* 100% certain. >> >>Specifically, at what level of confidence should they >>advance a guess? Richard Hills: I object to the nomenclature "advance a guess". The commonplace error "Zero pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, but I'm guessing to take it as ... " is specifically outlawed by the ABF Alert regulation. And rightly so, since such extraneous information about one partner's guess helps the other partner, therefore is an infraction of Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and _explanations given_ or not given to them." Nigel Guthrie, 1st February 2011: >>1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 90%, 99%, or what? Richard Hills: In my opinion absolute certainty is not required to avoid a Law 72B1 "must not" infraction. If one is "confident" beyond _reasonable_ doubt (not a mere 1% doubt) that one's explanation will be correct, then one gives opponents that explanation. Nigel Guthrie, 1st February 2011: >>Below that confidence-level, what should they say? Richard Hills: If one does have a _reasonable_ doubt (not a mere 1% doubt) that one will fail to accurately explain one's pre- existing mutual partnership understanding, then one summons the Director. Law 20F1, third sentence: "Except on the _instruction of the Director_ replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 00:52:48 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:52:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Out of Turn Faced-down Opening Lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1PkJei-1ABKy00@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: [snip] >Most of my unsureness (about the correct application of this >law) arises because of the wording of Law 54 C. > >54 A and B and D deal with "_faced_ OLOOT", whereas 54 C seems >to deal with _any_ OLOOT. > >HELP !! "It is quite a three pipe problem." Each and every one of the clauses of Law 54, including Law 54C, are necessarily subordinate to Law 54's prologue: When an opening lead out of turn ***is faced*** and offender's partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Also: Best wishes Mycroft Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 01:13:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:13:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D47E3F8.1050801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Dorothy Parker (1893-1967): Four be the things I'd been better without: Love, curiosity, freckles, and doubt. Alain Gottcheiner: >Remember, however, that if there is any doubt the TD shall >judge that there was withheld information. Richard Hills: Alain has misleadingly paraphrased Law 21B1(b): The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In almost all cases there will be evidence to the contrary. The contrary evidence may have little weight, as it may be merely self-serving verbal evidence. Even so, in such cases Law 21B1(b) is no longer relevant, and the Director instead weighs all the pro and con evidence under 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. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 01:51:09 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:51:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Another thread [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >Nothing in TFLB allows the director to decline to make a >ruling when called to a table on the grounds that no other >table would have called him. Perhaps there should be, but >that's for another thread. 2018 hypothetical Law 81C5: "The Director may waive rectification for cause. A request from the non-offending side is no longer required." Richard Hills: In my opinion such a hypothetical change to Law 81C5 would give too much legal power to Directors to arbitrarily change the outcome of tournaments. (It is bad enough that there are _already_ some foolish Directors who arbitrarily change the outcome of tournaments via illegal Ave+/Ave+.) Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 03:26:15 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:26:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Definitions: "Penalty card ? a card subject to disposition under Law 50." >I could find nowhere in the laws explicitly stating that >declarer cannot have penalty cards Yes, the Definitions are less than adequate. What should have been located in the Definition of penalty card is instead located in Law 48A (Declarer Exposes a Card): "Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 03:33:45 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:33:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Helps speed up the game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >I have several times shown a tanking defender some of my >cards, and no one has yet thought it constitutes a claim. >They usually thank me for it, for it helps speed up the game. Law 68, first sentence and footnote: For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*. * If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 04:59:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:59:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sven Pran: >I shall expect the player to provide a very good reason for >using a call for which (in his own opinion) no understanding >exists. I don't believe he can. 2008 Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, China (top seed) versus Australian Capital Territory Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, East, hold: T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Pass Pass 2NT(1) ? (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT are also non-systemic. What call do you make? If "Director!" is your call, then the Director elects to take North away from the table and asks North for a very good reason. What is North's very good reason? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 05:53:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:53:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Good Old Days - They Were Terrible! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Otto Bettman, author of The Good Old Days - They Were Terrible!: "Mr Gates will make it [Bettman Archives] even more accessible to the world. I'm glad he has a tendency towards aesthetics and art and is not just a computer madman." Eric Landau: [snip] >But fifty years ago, even the highest-level partnerships got by >with a relative handful of basic agreements covering opening >bids, basic responses and rebids, and a few simple "artificial" >conventions (e.g. Blackwood, Stayman), along with a general >understanding of how they bid (what we would call "meta- >agreements"). Beyond that, pretty much everything else was "no >agreement" or "undiscussed". Despite their lack of agreements, >they still managed most of the time to work out a reasonable >auction; this was generally considered to be a strong indication >that they knew a little something about how to play bridge. Richard Hills: But fifty years ago, even the highest-level partnerships had calamitously ineffective slam bidding methods (it was calculated that the British team which won the 1955 Bermuda Bowl would have won by an even bigger margin if it had _never_ bid _any_ slams). Despite experts lacking agreements it was generally considered use of That Old Black Magic (inflections and hesitations to clarify strength within an agreed wide ranging meaning) to be a strong indication that they knew something about how to play bridge. And despite Nigel Guthrie's yearning for simpler Laws, the very simple 1963 Lawbook was a colander of loopholes, permitting (amongst other atrocities) an Alcatraz Coup to be fully legal. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 06:34:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:34:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1033690204.15554.1295878367268.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >>Any halfway aspiring TD to-be in the Netherlands knows that >>after an unsure answer you call the TD, the TD sends the >>unsure-sayer out of earshot, let's his partner explain and >>calls the player back. >> >>This is no problem whatsoever. So why is this discussion so >>long-winded? Thomas Dehn: >The procedure you outline, and which Richard mentioned >earlier in this thread, is not part of TFLB, but merely a >procedure established by various RAs. Richard Hills: Not **merely** a procedure. The reason for its adoption by the Netherlands and Australian RAs is that it was an official interpretation of TFLB by the 1998-2005 WBF Laws Committee. Thomas Dehn: >The discussion in this thread is about how to handle the >situation with just TFLB, and no extra procedures >established by an RA. Richard Hills: Since the 2007 Drafting Committee did not include this procedure in the new Lawbook, and since the 2008-2015 WBF Laws Committee has not reissued this official interpretation, one might argue that this official interpretation has lapsed. On the other, the 1998-2005 WBF Laws Committee argued that its official interpretations stood until specifically voided. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 2 06:59:27 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:59:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Zeno of Citium, to a youth who was talking nonsense: "The reason why we have two ears and only one mouth is that we may listen the more and talk the less." Sven Pran: >Any player is entitled to a full explanation of opponents' >auction whether the relevant partnership understanding is >explicit or implicit. Richard Hills: Correct. Sven Pran: >"Not discussed", "I have no idea" and similar statements >are not such explanations, they are simply statements to >the effect that the player does not know what the correct >explanation is. According to law this is synonymous with >misexplanation, i.e. failure to give correct information. Richard Hills: Incorrect. They are simply statements to the effect that "Our partnership has zero pre-existing explicit or implicit mutual understanding." Accurately stating that one's partnership has a zero understanding is not failure to give correct information. Law 40A1(a): " ... or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." Richard Hills: If this is the first time that the players have had mutual experience or awareness of the situation, then it is entirely legitimate for a sensible Director to rule that "Not discussed" or "I have no idea" is an accurate and legal explanation. Best wishes Diogenes Laertius -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Feb 2 08:13:30 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 08:13:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Out_of_Turn_Faced-down_Opening_Lead_=5BSEC=3DUNO?= =?utf-8?q?FFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PkWuA-22TOds0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Peter Eidt: > >Most of my unsureness (about the correct application of this > >law) arises because of the wording of Law 54 C. > > > >54 A and B and D deal with "_faced_ OLOOT", whereas 54 C seems >to > deal with _any_ OLOOT. > > > >HELP !! > > "It is quite a three pipe problem." > > Each and every one of the clauses of Law 54, including Law 54C, are > necessarily subordinate to Law 54's prologue: > > When an opening lead out of turn ***is faced*** > and offender's partner leads face down, the > Director requires the face down lead to be > retracted. Also: Sorry, but I'm not convinced. The intro to Law 54 does _not_ state: "When OLOOT faced then _if_ partner face down, ..." In fact it states: "When OLOOT faced _and_ partner face down, _then_ ..." In my understanding of grammar the following "Also:" can not be connected to the first part of the condition (OLOOT faced) only. (btw: I always had some trouble to translate this Law 54, because I'm not sure, it says what it means). At the moment we have the following structure: Let (1) be: OLOOT faced Let (2) be: lead faced-down Let (3) be: (any) OLOOT Law 54: If (1) AND (2) then ... endif [no break] A. If (1) then ... endif; break B. If (1) then ... endif; break C. If (3) then ... endif; break D. If (1) then ... endif; break E. If (not_bridge) ... endif return ?? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 08:30:53 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:30:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/2/2 : > > Definitions: > > "Penalty card ? a card subject to disposition under Law 50." > >>I could find nowhere in the laws explicitly stating that >>declarer cannot have penalty cards L50: A card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card unless..... It can't be much clearer than this, can it? IMO the definitions is adequate. > > Yes, the Definitions are less than adequate. ?What should > have been located in the Definition of penalty card is > instead located in Law 48A (Declarer Exposes a Card): > > "Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card > (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer's or dummy's > hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required > to play any card dropped accidentally." > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section > Specialist Recruitment Team > Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 2 08:59:09 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 08:59:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unsure [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D490ECD.3070006@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > not" infraction -- compare and contrast young player > Gottcheiner infracting Law 72B1 by intentionally giving MI > due to failing to make a required Alert which young player > Gottcheiner was confident(1) was required). > > > (1) What do I mean by "confident"? > > infraction of Law 73B1: > > "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the > manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous > remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the > opponents or alerts and _explanations given_ or not given > to them." > Some would say that this is exactly the reason why Alain did not alert: so as not to communicate to Patrick that his previous explanation was mistaken. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 2 15:09:02 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:09:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] What the GCC allows when competing over an artificial 1C opening In-Reply-To: <11E9F5E5-699D-4AA7-8BFF-2D7084C289C9@starpower.net> References: <20110131163844.F3039A8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> <4D46EAED.7060608@ulb.ac.be> <11E9F5E5-699D-4AA7-8BFF-2D7084C289C9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D49657E.9040300@ulb.ac.be> Le 1/02/2011 15:32, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 31/01/2011 17:38, Adam Beneschan a ?crit : >> >>> Point taken. If there were a list of specific conventions that were >>> or were not allowed over a strong club, and the list said that >>> certain >>> bids that were OK as opening bids were not allowed as overcalls, I >>> might think it was a dumb rule, but at least the organization is >>> within their rights to make rules like that. >>> >>> However, the argument here isn't about whether the GCC's rules are >>> wise or not; the argument is that, given that the GCC rules are what >>> they are, whether an overcall that shows 16+ falls within the rules. >>> And I don't see how a bid that is allowed as an opening bid can be >>> considered a bid whose "primary purpose is to destroy the opponents' >>> methods" when used as an overcall. >> AG : there is no contradicti?on up to now. >> >> Abid might have a destructive purpose and be allowed as an opening bid >> (e.g. Multi). In that case, it might *both* be allowed as an >> opening and >> be destructive as an overcall. > But that's not the case here. The regulation in question forbids, > "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy > the opponents? methods." That's all it says. It makes no > distinction between opening bids and overcalls. > AG : but Mluti is allowed. Obvious contradiction. (not to speak of preempts) From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Feb 2 18:06:07 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (me) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:06:07 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ED575B3-5FD4-4C4F-83E9-69193A17FB66@gmail.com> On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Harald wrote: > 2011/2/2 : >> >> Definitions: >> >> "Penalty card ? a card subject to disposition under Law 50." >> >>> I could find nowhere in the laws explicitly stating that >>> declarer cannot have penalty cards > > L50: A card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card unless..... > > It can't be much clearer than this, can it? > >> Not definitive by itself. Every painting by Rembrandt is a masterpiece. But that does not imply that all masterpiece paintings are by Rembrandt. What would make it definitive is if this is only way a card can become a penalty card listed in the law book, but you have to look everywhere for that before you know. I find Richards's assessment accurate in all respects. The answer is inside Law 48A, but should have been in the definitions. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 2 18:50:59 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 18:50:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <3ED575B3-5FD4-4C4F-83E9-69193A17FB66@gmail.com> References: <3ED575B3-5FD4-4C4F-83E9-69193A17FB66@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701cbc301$c03da480$40b8ed80$@no> On Behalf Of me Sent: 2. februar 2011 18:06 > On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Harald wrote: > > > 2011/2/2 : > >> > >> Definitions: > >> > >> "Penalty card ? a card subject to disposition under Law 50." > >> > >>> I could find nowhere in the laws explicitly stating that declarer > >>> cannot have penalty cards > > > > L50: A card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card unless..... > > > > It can't be much clearer than this, can it? > > > >> > > Not definitive by itself. Every painting by Rembrandt is a masterpiece. But that > does not imply that all masterpiece paintings are by Rembrandt. Of course not, but if the definition of masterpiece had been "a painting by Rembrandt" then we would have had a definition similar to the definition of penalty card: "A card subject to disposition under law 50". This definition limits penalty cards to be cards from defenders' hands (as specified in Law 50) just as the above definition of masterpiece would have limited masterpieces to paintings by Rembrandt. I agree with Harald: Could it be clearer than this? > I find Richards's assessment accurate in all respects. The answer is inside Law > 48A, but should have been in the definitions. No, Law 48A simply emphasizes the consequence that only defenders' cards can ever become penalty cards. This is not part of definitions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 3 01:34:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:34:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>>..... >>>and I wondered whether perfection lay in the >>>lack of challenge to questionable guidance. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A guru with many blind spots, Richard Hills: >>Yes, it is risky for a newbie Director to seek advice from >>merely one guru wielding a Big Black Rod, as that newbie >>Director is unaware of the singular guru's blind spots.(1) >> >>But with several gurus, such blind spots are cancelled out. A guru with only one blind spot, Nigel Guthrie: >..... >I once claimed that if you agree to play, say "Jannerston >Precision", have a summary of it on your system card, and >declare that to your opponents then that is your systemic >agreement. Even if you've forgotten it or never learnt it. >In common sense or ordinary law, such an interpretation >seems obvious. Albert Einstein: "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen." Richard Hills: Appealing to "common sense" is necessarily an invalid argument in blml debate, since: (a) different blmlers have different "common sense" deposits, and (b) the whole point of the game of Duplicate Bridge is that it lacks the simple "common sense" of the game of noughts- and-crosses (tic-tac-toe). Nigel Guthrie: >Richard Hills contradicted me. For Bridge law purposes, >Richard explained that your agreement is what is in your >head -- not what is written on your system-card or notes. >That is: what you've forgotten or never learnt properly is >not your legal systemic agreement. >..... Richard Hills: Incorrect paraphrase of my views and of Bridge Law 40C1. (a) If you occasionally forget (Law 40C1 does not apply) your pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, then what is currently in your head is irrelevant; your pre- existing mutual partnership understanding as written on your System Card or in your notes continues to apply. (b) If you have repeatedly forgotten and/or repeatedly deviated from your _notional_ pre-existing mutual partnership understanding (so now Law 40C1 definitely does apply), then your _actual_ pre-existing implicit mutual partnership understanding is in accordance with your deviations. The important point is that it is not the subjective what-is-in-your-head but rather the objective criterion in Law 40C1 (second sentence): "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." (c) System Cards and notes are definitely not infallible sacred texts. For example, I recently carefully reviewed the 28 pages of Ali-Hills system notes and discovered that on my previous iteration a few months ago I had been careless. Ergo, an assiduous opponent who had bothered to read these notes would have received MI. So I have now pruned obsolete understandings, reducing the pages to 26. (d) When there is a Law 85 dispute about what pre-existing mutual understanding a partnership has, written evidence (from System Cards and notes) is not the only evidence. For example, Ali and Hills could have given convincing verbal evidence which would have outweighed the obsolete written evidence of the Ali-Hills notes. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) Newbies should not judge the quality of a guru by the quantity of a guru's postings. BLML usage statistics for January 2011 Posts From ----- ---- 98 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 64 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 63 ehaa (at) starpower.net 61 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 57 svenpran (at) online.no 56 blml (at) arcor.de 54 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 43 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 23 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 19 swillner (at) nhcc.net 16 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk In eleventh place with merely 16 posts is grandaeval (Grattan Endicott), whose posts are of such quality that they deserve permanent retention in one's email folders. Contrariwise, the 162 posts of those in first and second place have a little blasting value (but no lasting value), thus should be promptly trashed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 3 02:13:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:13:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South >>replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully >>completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as >>non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT >>are also non-systemic. Grattan Endicott, "Unsure" thread, 24th January 2011: >+=+ Some clarification is needed of the assertions >appearing in this topic. The RA regulates the use of >system cards. It tells players what information must >be included on the card. This does not override the >requirements in Law 20F1 as to what an opponent >is entitled to know. So in reply to a lawful enquiry a >player must ensure that all such knowledge is given to >his opponent; merely referring opponent to the system >card is insufficient unless all the information is present >on it. Failure to provide the information is an infraction >and will result in sanctions if opponent is damaged >because he did not receive a due explanation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The partnership understanding between North and South is that for the majority of possible North hands North's systemic call is a Pass; and for the residue of possible North hands North's systemic bid is either 1C, 1D, 1H, 1S, 1NT, 2C, 2D, 2H, 2S, 3C, 3D, 3H, 3S, 3NT, 4C, 4D, 4H, 4S, 4NT, 5C, 5D, 5H, 5S, 5NT, 6C, 6D, 6H, 6S, 6NT, 7C, 7D, 7H, 7S or 7NT. So one question is whether North-South are playing an illegal Yellow (HUM) system, in which by agreement a 2NT opening promises a random 13 cards; or whether North-South are playing a legal Blue (Strong Club) system, in which by agreement neither North nor South would ever open 2NT. Best wishes 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 3 06:15:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:15:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >..... >it's easier to play against players with firm bidding than >against improvising bidders; on the other side the second >category will give you more presents. Richard Hills: And then there is a third category; a partnership with very firm methods, but one partner once (and only once) chooses a deliberate and gross and spectacular misstatement of the partnership's methods. 2008 Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, China (top seed) versus Australian Capital Territory Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, East, hold: T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Pass Pass 2NT(1) Pass(2) Pass(3) Pass (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT are also non-systemic. (2) You decide to defer any call for the TD. Since you do not have any partnership agreement on a defence to a non- systemic 2NT bid, you elect to Pass. (3) Non-systemic. You elect to lead the king of diamonds to have a look at dummy. You see: Dummy (South) AK2 QT8 9843 You (East) J76 T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 On the king of diamonds partner follows suit with a non- descript six of diamonds, which is consistent with partner holding an even number of diamonds (and, of course, is also consistent with a singleton six of diamonds). Declarer plays a non-systemic queen of diamonds. What suit do you lead at trick two? What other suits do you consider leading at trick two? What suit or suits, if any, would it be "wild or gambling" (Law 12C1(b)) to lead at trick two? Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >full disclosure is a simple thing once you have understood >what it is all about. >jpr -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 3 06:54:18 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 06:54:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction Message-ID: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> For those of you who play suction: Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? For example: 1SA ... 2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card major (or both). Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? If so, what is his bid? Thanks, JE From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 3 07:54:09 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 07:54:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> References: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> Message-ID: <046201cbc36f$28afd7f0$7a0f87d0$@nl> I play it. Around here it is called multi-defense. The way it is usually played, at least around here, is that now bidding say 2H is preference for hearts if partner has the majors. It promises diamonds enough to play at the three level. If you have a strong hand you can bid 2N or 3C and take it from there. With a weak hand and no desire at all to play in diamonds you could theoretically pass 2C, if you don't mind going down a lot undoubled. This works against a strong NT where you basically have given up on game. Against a weak NT we play double as points and not the C or D and H that is usual. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2011 6:54 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] suction For those of you who play suction: Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? For example: 1SA ... 2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card major (or both). Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? If so, what is his bid? Thanks, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 09:08:34 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 03:08:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> References: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D4A6282.5020405@gmail.com> On 02/03/2011 12:54 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > For those of you who play suction: > > Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? For example: > > 1SA ... 2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card > major (or both). Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? If so, what is his bid? > You have to bid the next suit unless you're prepared to bid your suit (at least) twice, Jeff. If you bid 2 of a major over 2C, then you're promising diamond support and showing your better major, and risk pard putting you through the roof in diamonds. With no support for the next suit, bid it anyway, you can try running if/when you're doubled if you wish. You can also try passing 2C if things look really desperate, you might just convince opponents that you have a string of clubs and they'll rescue you. Brian. From henk at ripe.net Thu Feb 3 09:23:40 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:23:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> References: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D4A660C.4070409@ripe.net> On 03/02/2011 06:54, Jeff Easterson wrote: > For those of you who play suction: > > Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? For example: > > 1SA ... 2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card > major (or both). Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? If so, what is his bid? Yes, he can refuse to bid 2D, though with a singleton/void in diamonds, this is probably not a good idea. 1NT-2C-P-2D/H/S are all pass or correct. 2D shows that partner doesn't mind playing 2D if that is the long suit, if the overcaller has majors, he'll hear about this next. 2H/S shows the best major but as the overcaller will correct 3D if he has long diamonds, it implies a D fit. 1N-2C-P-P is possible as well, if responder has lots of clubs. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 3 09:26:31 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:26:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> References: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> Message-ID: <047701cbc37c$1037bb40$30a731c0$@nl> One more possibility is if the 2C call is doubled. Now you can play rdbl to be a signal that you want to take control. Partner makes the cheapest bid, and you decide on the suit to play. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2011 6:54 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] suction For those of you who play suction: Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? For example: 1SA ... 2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card major (or both). Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? If so, what is his bid? Thanks, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 10:07:48 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:07:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <047701cbc37c$1037bb40$30a731c0$@nl> References: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> <047701cbc37c$1037bb40$30a731c0$@nl> Message-ID: 2011/2/3 Hans van Staveren : > One more possibility is if the 2C call is doubled. Now you can play rdbl to > be a signal that you want to take control. Partner makes the cheapest bid, > and you decide on the suit to play. > I'd do it the other way around, similar to what I do when a Multi opener (or overcall) is doubled. Pass would show clubs, suggesting to play 2CX. XX would ask partner to show his hand => bid 2D with diamonds and 2H with the majors. A new suit directly over the double would be natural, strongly suggesting to play there (unless that is (one of) overcallers suit(s)). > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Jeff Easterson > Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2011 6:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] suction > > For those of you who play suction: > > Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? ?For example: > > 1SA ... ?2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card > major (or both). ?Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? ?If so, what is his bid? > > Thanks, ?JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 3 10:39:30 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:39:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <000701cbc301$c03da480$40b8ed80$@no> References: <3ED575B3-5FD4-4C4F-83E9-69193A17FB66@gmail.com> <000701cbc301$c03da480$40b8ed80$@no> Message-ID: <4D4A77D2.4050001@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/02/2011 18:50, Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of me Sent: 2. februar 2011 18:06 >> On Feb 2, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Harald wrote: >> >>> 2011/2/2: >>>> Definitions: >>>> >>>> "Penalty card ? a card subject to disposition under Law 50." >>>> >>>>> I could find nowhere in the laws explicitly stating that declarer >>>>> cannot have penalty cards >>> L50: A card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card unless..... >>> >>> It can't be much clearer than this, can it? >>> >> Not definitive by itself. Every painting by Rembrandt is a masterpiece. But that >> does not imply that all masterpiece paintings are by Rembrandt. > Of course not, but if the definition of masterpiece had been "a painting by Rembrandt" then we would have had a definition similar to the definition of penalty card: "A card subject to disposition under law 50". > > This definition limits penalty cards to be cards from defenders' hands (as specified in Law 50) just as the above definition of masterpiece would have limited masterpieces to paintings by Rembrandt. > > I agree with Harald: Could it be clearer than this? > >> I find Richards's assessment accurate in all respects. The answer is inside Law >> 48A, but should have been in the definitions. > No, Law 48A simply emphasizes the consequence that only defenders' cards can ever become penalty cards. This is not part of definitions. > AG : agreed. They should also state what happens if a players who has some penalty card (shown during the auction) happens to end up as declarer (never seen a would-be declarer make the opening lead ?) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 3 10:48:23 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:48:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> References: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D4A79E7.9040401@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/02/2011 6:54, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > For those of you who play suction: > > Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? For example: > > 1SA ... 2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card > major (or both). Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? If so, what is his bid? AG : the theory says that, when you skip a compulsory response to a puppet-type bid, you don't want partner to pass the rectification. According to circumstances, it might mean an extreme misfit (e.g. after 1D-1S-2H-2NT, bid 3D with 2470), or to the contrary, an unexpected fit (tranfer-breaking or multi-style); From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 3 10:55:49 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:55:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <4D4A6282.5020405@gmail.com> References: <4D4A430A.8080308@aol.com> <4D4A6282.5020405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D4A7BA5.4000206@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/02/2011 9:08, Brian a ?crit : > On 02/03/2011 12:54 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: >> For those of you who play suction: >> >> Can the partner ever refuse to make the relay? For example: >> >> 1SA ... 2 cl. and the responder has 0 (or only 1) diamond but a 5 card >> major (or both). Can he refuse to bid 2 diam.? If so, what is his bid? >> > You have to bid the next suit unless you're prepared to bid your suit > (at least) twice, Jeff. If you bid 2 of a major over 2C, then you're > promising diamond support and showing your better major, and risk pard > putting you through the roof in diamonds. AG : notice that, over a double from n?3, it pays to play the redouble as "I want to play in my own suit". now it's partner who has to complete the puppet bid, even with a void. From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 3 11:15:11 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 11:15:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <4D4A77D2.4050001@ulb.ac.be> References: <3ED575B3-5FD4-4C4F-83E9-69193A17FB66@gmail.com> <000701cbc301$c03da480$40b8ed80$@no> <4D4A77D2.4050001@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01cbc38b$3e2fedb0$ba8fc910$@no> > From: Alain Gottcheiner [mailto:agot at ulb.ac.be] ................. > >> Not definitive by itself. Every painting by Rembrandt is a > >> masterpiece. But that does not imply that all masterpiece paintings are by > Rembrandt. > > Of course not, but if the definition of masterpiece had been "a painting by > Rembrandt" then we would have had a definition similar to the definition of penalty > card: "A card subject to disposition under law 50". > > > > This definition limits penalty cards to be cards from defenders' hands (as > specified in Law 50) just as the above definition of masterpiece would have limited > masterpieces to paintings by Rembrandt. > > > > I agree with Harald: Could it be clearer than this? > > > >> I find Richards's assessment accurate in all respects. The answer is > >> inside Law 48A, but should have been in the definitions. > > No, Law 48A simply emphasizes the consequence that only defenders' cards > can ever become penalty cards. This is not part of definitions. > > > AG : agreed. They should also state what happens if a players who has some > penalty card (shown during the auction) happens to end up as declarer (never > seen a would-be declarer make the opening lead ?) Cards can be exposed during the auction, but such cards do not become penalty cards until the end of the auction period and then only if they belong to a defender's hand. Such cards that belong to declarer or dummy are simply restored to the applicable hand at the end of the auction period. "Opening lead" by presumed declarer (or dummy) is handled by Law 54E From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 3 20:44:26 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:44:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] equity in a claiming statment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I posed this question to Mike Flader of the ACBL. He answered it in the ACBL Bulletin, saying "it is to be assumed that the defense will play without error." He cites 70A. So this is probably the dominant view in ACBL-land. On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 10:32:41 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Yesterday, declarer claimed saying she had the rest except the ace of > hearts. Had she played it out, she certainly would have gotten all of the > tricks except the ace. But there was a double dummy defense to get two > tricks on defense. (The chance of my partner finding this defense at the > table was zero. Take that as an accepted fact.) > > > What should be the proper ruling? Normally, I would have thought that it > was obvious the defense gets two tricks if they can find that defense > double dummy. But the prelude to L70 says that the director should try to > make an equitable ruling to both sides. Normally I ignore that. Well, to > be honest, I didn't even know it was there. Does it really have any > effect > on rulings? Is this one of them? Certainly the equitable ruling is that > defense gets only one more trick. > > > > The hand, if you care. Spades are trump and east is on lead. > > -- > Q > xxxx > -- > > -- -- > 9x Ax > QJx 10 > -- xx > > xx > J10x > -- > -- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 3 20:55:33 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:55:33 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <000701cbc301$c03da480$40b8ed80$@no> References: <3ED575B3-5FD4-4C4F-83E9-69193A17FB66@gmail.com> <000701cbc301$c03da480$40b8ed80$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of me Sent: 2. februar 2011 18:06. >> >> Not definitive by itself. ?Every painting by Rembrandt is a masterpiece. ?But that >> does not imply that all masterpiece paintings are by Rembrandt. > > Of course not, but if the definition of masterpiece had been "a painting by Rembrandt" then we would have had a definition similar to the definition of penalty card: "A card subject to disposition under law 50". > > This definition limits penalty cards to be cards from defenders' hands (as specified in Law 50) just as the above definition of masterpiece would have limited masterpieces to paintings by Rembrandt. > I would have to agree with this assessment, except that Law 50 does not strike me as the definition, for these reasons: 1. Law 47 twice says something like this: "penalty card, see Law 49." If Law 50 was the definition, why refer to Law 49 in this case? 2. Law 50 contains the undefined term "prematurely expose". 3. The best definition for penalty card would have to include Laws 14, 24, 45, 47, 57, 58, 60, 62, and 68. This is the only way I see that "prematurely expose" can be understood to make Law 50 excruciatingly correct. There are tricky aspects, such as Alain's question (which is covered by Law 24) and what happens when a missing card is restored during play. If you are sure just by reading Law 50 and the definition of penalty card that declarer can never have a penalty card, well, you're probably smarter than me. For me, the phrase "no card of declarer?s or dummy?s hand ever becomes a penalty card" in Law 48 does the trick, and I wish something like that was in the definitions. If no one else would benefit from that, okay. Jerry Fusselman From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 3 21:16:38 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:16:38 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:55:33 CST." Message-ID: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> Jerry wrote: > I would have to agree with this assessment, except that Law 50 does > not strike me as the definition, for these reasons: > > 1. Law 47 twice says something like this: "penalty card, see Law > 49." If Law 50 was the definition, why refer to Law 49 in this case? > 2. Law 50 contains the undefined term "prematurely expose". > 3. The best definition for penalty card would have to include Laws > 14, 24, 45, 47, 57, 58, 60, 62, and 68. This is the only way I see > that "prematurely expose" can be understood to make Law 50 > excruciatingly correct. There are tricky aspects, such as Alain's > question (which is covered by Law 24) and what happens when a missing > card is restored during play. > > If you are sure just by reading Law 50 and the definition of penalty > card that declarer can never have a penalty card, well, you're > probably smarter than me. For me, the phrase "no card of declarer's > or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card" in Law 48 does the trick, > and I wish something like that was in the definitions. If no one else > would benefit from that, okay. The reason it's not in the "definitions" is that it isn't part of a definition. I get the impression that you want the "Definitions" section to contain useful facts that aren't definitions because it would be more convenient for you if they were there. I can certainly understand that this fact (that declarer may not have a penalty card) may be the sort of thing that would be useful to see in a convenient place, and it isn't right now. But that doesn't mean it belongs in the "Definitions" section. (Although I could see putting it there as a footnote, or in parentheses, or something like that.) Maybe we have a misunderstanding about what the definition of "definition" is. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 3 21:28:16 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:28:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <3ED575B3-5FD4-4C4F-83E9-69193A17FB66@gmail.com> <000701cbc301$c03da480$40b8ed80$@no> Message-ID: <000d01cbc3e0$e3934040$aab9c0c0$@no> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ..................... > I would have to agree with this assessment, except that Law 50 does not strike me > as the definition, for these reasons: Law 50 is not the definition of a penalty card The definition is: Penalty card - a card subject to disposition under Law 50. And Law 50 further describes this as: A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise What is your problem? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 4 00:21:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:21:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2008 Asian Cup Qualifying, match number 17, China (top seed) versus Australian Capital Territory Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, the Chinese East, hold: T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Ali China Hills China Pass Pass 2NT(1) Pass(2) Pass(3) Pass (1) You ask South about the meaning of North's 2NT. South replies, "Non-systemic". You examine the pair's carefully completed WBF System Card. Not only does it describe 2NT as non-systemic, but it helpfully adds that all replies to 2NT are also non-systemic. (2) You decide to defer any call for the TD. Since you do not have any partnership agreement on a defence to a non- systemic 2NT bid, you elect to Pass. (3) Non-systemic. You elect to lead the king of diamonds to have a look at dummy. You see: Dummy (South) AK2 QT8 9843 You (East) J76 T94 J54 AK72 AQ9 On the king of diamonds partner follows suit with a non- descript six of diamonds, which is consistent with partner holding an even number of diamonds (and, of course, is also consistent with a singleton six of diamonds). Declarer plays a non-systemic queen of diamonds. What suit or suits, if any, would it be "wild or gambling" (Law 12C1(b)) to lead at trick two? Matthias Berghaus, 11th September 2008: >Good question. None, probably. A case can be made for all >suits. The case for a spade switch is pretty weak though. >I suspect declarer of having a spade suit, and this could >give him enough tricks for his contract. I do not think >declarer has a heart suit headed by AK, but I have been >wrong before... > >Best regards >Matthias Although the China team won the Grand Final, they did make a complete nonsense of their defence on this deal. Richard Hills J753 AK9632 Q China 85 China Q86 T94 7 J54 JT65 AK72 KT432 Hashmat Ali AQ9 AK2 QT8 9843 J76 Suspecting that my queen of diamonds was a false-card from QJT, my LHO switched to a spade in order to help set up my RHO's hypothetical queen of spades. The operation was indeed successful - RHO did indeed hold the queen of spades - but the patient died, since now I had eight cashing tricks in the majors for +120. Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." We won five imps on this deal (4H was -50 at the other table), thus won this match against the champions by two imps. This 2NT was not a CPU but rather a CIU (Concealed Individual Understanding). I very carefully kept concealed from my partner my intent to violate system once (and only once) at some stage during the Asian Cup. In order to obey "the chief object" of Law 72A, my opening bid had to be third seat not vul versus vul, and the opponents had to be a much stronger team (so that randomising the result improved my team's expectation on the board). So, in my opinion, my action was compliant with Law 72A, since our China opponents eventually won the Grand Final of the entire event. But China did _not_ win their qualifying match against us, as a 5 imp gain to us on this board helped us achieve a 2 imp victory. Grattan Endicott, 11th September 2008: >+=+ Aye, there's the rub. We should have begun by enquiring >what these 'relaxed conditions' contained, in particular as >to systems. Even a simple reference to the WBF Systems >Policy would have established the [2NT] opener to be 'Brown >Sticker'. > Oh but, now we are told that "the international players >in the Asian Cup are obviously less competent than South >Canberra LOLs, so the Asian Cup CoC prohibited Brown Sticker >conventions from use in its qualifying rounds". So we gather >that Richard admits to a breach of the CoC - ah well, back >to the LOLs. :-) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I still have Very good reason to believe that Grattan had a blind spot in his analysis. Brown Sticker convention = subset of convention convention = subset of partnership methods partnership methods = mutual to both partners but..... psyche = unilateral by one partner Grattan would be correct that 2NT was an illegal Brown Sticker convention if Ali-Hills had mutually agreed that when 2NT occurred it would Systemically show 13 random cards. But what Ali-Hills actually agreed was that 2NT was Non-Systemic -- 2NT would never-ever be opened -- thus rendering the Ali-Hills system non-Brown Sticker and hence legal. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 4 05:45:40 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:45:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Very sensible David Barton (critiquing a daft Norwegian reg): >Well it looks crazy to me. > >This is effectively saying that every partnership has >agreements about every sequence and hence "no agreement" can >never be the appropriate answer even when it is absolutely >correct. > >I am glad I do not have to try and enforce anything like >that in my local club. I would be down to 2 tables in no >time flat. Very sensible C.K. Prahalad (1941-2010): "Be concerned about due process. People seek fairness ? not favors. They want to be heard. They often don't even mind if decisions don't go their way as long as the process is fair and transparent." Very sensible David Barton: >Now I would accept that "no agreement" is rarely a full >disclosure as there are likely to be other sequences for >which there are agreements which would influence the >likely meanings of this particular sequence and these >inferences should be disclosed. Very sensible ABF Alert regulation, clause 9.2: "If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying, 'Undiscussed', for example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as 'I take it to mean...' or 'I'm treating it as...'. Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised information to partner." Very sensible David Barton: >But at the end of the day, if the partnership does not have >an agreement it is not up to a National Authority to deem >they have an agreement and penalise them for failing to >disclose it. >>>..... >>>and I wondered whether perfection lay in the >>>lack of challenge to questionable guidance. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Perfectly patriotic Sven Pran: >>I have a very strong feeling that what many of you forget >>is this: [snip] >>"No agreement" or "undiscussed" is more likely to cause >>damage to opponents if they in spite of their alleged lack >>of agreements still most of the time work out a reasonable >>auction. To me that looks like a strong indication of a >>probable concealed partnership understanding. Very idiosyncratic Richard Hills: I have this very strong feeling that what Sven Pran has forgotten is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. As the very sensible David Barton correctly observed, "99.99% of partnerships will come across an undiscussed situation at some point." If one partner misguesses the intent of the other partner's undiscussed call, therefore choosing a call which leads to a debacle, the other side are not damaged and the Director is not summoned. But if the absent TD Sven Pran had indeed been present, to Sven Pran that debacle would have been a strong indication of a probable _lack_ of partnership understanding, thus Sven Pran's assertion of "most of the time" would not be accurate. To summarise: How can getting a series of 50/50 guesses right 50% of the time be Strong and Probable evidence of a CPU? To summarise the summary: Arbitrarily ruling that each and every explanation of "Undiscussed" is a CPU ain't Due Process of a Fair and Transparent nature. Best wishes Very idiosyncratic 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 4 09:11:57 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 09:11:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal Message-ID: <1PlGlp-0Vl9E00@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Law 92: "A. Contestant?s Right A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. B. Time of Appeal The right to request or appeal a Director?s ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified a different time period. C. How to Appeal All appeals shall be made through the Director. [...]" Law 93 B: "If a committee is available, 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee. [...] 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" The tournament consists of 3 sessions. Session 1 and 2 bulid a qualification stage after that the leading 40 pairs play in flight A and the remaining pairs play in flight B. The regulations (and the CoC) are silent in regard to special appeals procedures. One pair received a TD decision in session 1 (saturday afternoon), which they do no like any more on sunday morning (before session 3 = final). Now they appeal. The TD states on the appeals form that the appeal is out of time and informs the appeals committee specifically about this fact. Nevertheless the appeals committee holds the trial and assigns an adjusted score. What is a TD expected to do in this scenario? 1. According to Law 93 B1 he may/shall/must (?) rule "too late". But this ruling may still be appealed. So an AC will have to work. 2. If this AC works _and_ decides to deal with the original late appeal _and_ decides to change a former TD ruling, shall the TD a) accept this AC ruling as a legal score adjustment? or b) refuse this AC ruling referring to Law 93 B3? ?? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 4 09:27:03 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 09:27:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > I still have Very good reason to believe that Grattan had a > blind spot in his analysis. > > Brown Sticker convention = subset of convention > convention = subset of partnership methods > partnership methods = mutual to both partners > > but..... > > psyche = unilateral by one partner > > Grattan would be correct that 2NT was an illegal Brown Sticker > convention if Ali-Hills had mutually agreed that when 2NT > occurred it would Systemically show 13 random cards. But what > Ali-Hills actually agreed was that 2NT was Non-Systemic -- 2NT > would never-ever be opened -- thus rendering the Ali-Hills > system non-Brown Sticker and hence legal. > > What's the problem? > That when you agree that 2NT would never ever be opened, and you then open it, you have told your partner that he can expect anything, hence, 13 random cards, hence, a brown sticker convention. If OTOH you agree that 2NT shows X, and then open it on 13 random cards, your partner has no reason to suspect anything but X. Now his only true answer is: "we have agreed never to open 2NT, so he now has 13 cards". BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th lowest bid. Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not 2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? > Best wishes > > Richard Hills -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 10:00:36 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:00:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <1PlGlp-0Vl9E00@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <1PlGlp-0Vl9E00@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> Who organised the appeal, if the TD had ruled it out of time? Gordon Rainsford On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:11, Peter Eidt wrote: > Law 92: > "A. Contestant?s Right > A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling > made at his table by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed > to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by > regulation. > B. Time of Appeal > The right to request or appeal a Director?s ruling expires > 30 minutes after the official score has been made available > for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified > a different time period. > C. How to Appeal > All appeals shall be made through the Director. > [...]" > > Law 93 B: > "If a committee is available, > 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part > of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. > His ruling may be appealed to the committee. > [...] > 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise > all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except > that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge > on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 > disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the > Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" > > > The tournament consists of 3 sessions. Session 1 and 2 > bulid a qualification stage after that the leading 40 pairs play in > flight A and the remaining pairs play in flight B. The regulations > (and the CoC) are silent in regard to special appeals procedures. > > One pair received a TD decision in session 1 (saturday afternoon), > which they do no like any more on sunday morning (before session 3 > = final). Now they appeal. > > The TD states on the appeals form that the appeal is out of time > and informs the appeals committee specifically about this fact. > Nevertheless the appeals committee holds the trial and assigns > an adjusted score. > > What is a TD expected to do in this scenario? > > 1. According to Law 93 B1 he may/shall/must (?) rule "too late". > But this ruling may still be appealed. So an AC will have to work. > > 2. If this AC works _and_ decides to deal with the original > late appeal _and_ decides to change a former TD ruling, > shall the TD > a) accept this AC ruling as a legal score adjustment? or > b) refuse this AC ruling referring to Law 93 B3? > > ?? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 4 10:03:22 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:03:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Late_Appeal?= In-Reply-To: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> References: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1PlHZa-187TE00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> From: Gordon Rainsford > Who organised the appeal, if the TD had ruled it out of time? The TD of course. Being bound by Law 93 B3. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 4 10:05:56 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:05:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Late_Appeal_=28corr=2E=29?= Message-ID: <1PlHc4-0qBiUa0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: Gordon Rainsford > Who organised the appeal, if the TD had ruled it out of time? The TD of course. Being bound by Law 93 B1. (sorry) From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 10:10:36 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:10:36 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <1PlHZa-187TE00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> <1PlHZa-187TE00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <81BC2473-425A-4710-8557-ABBF1ADDCEC2@btinternet.com> It seems to me that it it a matter of law or regulation that the TD has ruled the appeal out of time. So, when the players wish to appeal this, it should be heard in the first instance by the Director in Charge. Only once this appeal has been ruled on by the DIC might the players appeal further to a committee (who can only recommend that the director change his ruling). Was that procedure followed? If not, that might be the source of the problem. Gordon Rainsford On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:03, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Gordon Rainsford >> Who organised the appeal, if the TD had ruled it out of time? > > The TD of course. Being bound by Law 93 B3. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 10:21:18 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:21:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5A27B012-2F53-4820-8A36-5D3D43A070FA@btinternet.com> On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:27, Herman De Wael wrote: > BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th > lowest bid. 11th? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110204/9e7b23af/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Feb 4 10:22:58 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:22:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 07:27 PM 4/02/2011, you wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > I still have Very good reason to believe that Grattan had a > > blind spot in his analysis. > > > > Brown Sticker convention = subset of convention > > convention = subset of partnership methods > > partnership methods = mutual to both partners > > > > but..... > > > > psyche = unilateral by one partner > > > > Grattan would be correct that 2NT was an illegal Brown Sticker > > convention if Ali-Hills had mutually agreed that when 2NT > > occurred it would Systemically show 13 random cards. But what > > Ali-Hills actually agreed was that 2NT was Non-Systemic -- 2NT > > would never-ever be opened -- thus rendering the Ali-Hills > > system non-Brown Sticker and hence legal. > > > > What's the problem? > > > >That when you agree that 2NT would never ever be opened, and you then >open it, you have told your partner that he can expect anything, hence, >13 random cards, hence, a brown sticker convention. > >If OTOH you agree that 2NT shows X, and then open it on 13 random cards, >your partner has no reason to suspect anything but X. Now his only true >answer is: "we have agreed never to open 2NT, so he now has 13 cards". > >BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th >lowest bid. Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not >2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard Hills > >-- >Herman De Wael >Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium I am more worried about the possibility that against a top team, the known psycher Richard Hills has tuned his partner to wonder "when is it coming". That is what I would be doing and I hope partner would not be prepared. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 4 10:31:26 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:31:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <81BC2473-425A-4710-8557-ABBF1ADDCEC2@btinternet.com> References: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> <1PlHZa-187TE00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <81BC2473-425A-4710-8557-ABBF1ADDCEC2@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4D4BC76E.2050203@skynet.be> Something like this happened to me last saturday. I was called for a revoke ruling. I ruled one penalty trick and asked the player if he believed that was enough. He told me it was. During the second match of the day, the player (who was sitting out that match) came to me and said that they might make two extra tricks if the revoke had not occured (so the one trick penalty was insufficient). So I told him he was out of time, but I noted the time (there is a problem here: there is just 15 minutes between matches, so how should the period from L79C be determined? So I was prepared to accept an appeal on the application of L79C. There was already at that time no need for this appeal envisaged. The team were leading by 100 IMPs with 32 boards to play. Herman. Gordon Rainsford wrote: > It seems to me that it it a matter of law or regulation that the TD > has ruled the appeal out of time. So, when the players wish to appeal > this, it should be heard in the first instance by the Director in > Charge. Only once this appeal has been ruled on by the DIC might the > players appeal further to a committee (who can only recommend that > the director change his ruling). > > Was that procedure followed? If not, that might be the source of the > problem. > > Gordon Rainsford > > > On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:03, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> From: Gordon Rainsford >>> Who organised the appeal, if the TD had ruled it out of time? >> >> The TD of course. Being bound by Law 93 B3. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3421 - Release Date: 02/03/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 4 10:32:22 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:32:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5A27B012-2F53-4820-8A36-5D3D43A070FA@btinternet.com> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <5A27B012-2F53-4820-8A36-5D3D43A070FA@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:27, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th >> >> lowest bid. >> > > 11th? > Pass, 1Cl, 1Di, 1He, 1Sp, 1NT, 2Cl, 2Di, 2He, 2Sp, 2NT = 11th > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3421 - Release Date: 02/03/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 10:37:42 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:37:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <5A27B012-2F53-4820-8A36-5D3D43A070FA@btinternet.com> <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2011/2/4 Herman De Wael : > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:27, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th >>> >>> lowest bid. >>> >> >> 11th? >> > > Pass, 1Cl, 1Di, 1He, 1Sp, 1NT, 2Cl, 2Di, 2He, 2Sp, 2NT = 11th Ah, but Pass is a call, not a bid..... :) > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3421 - Release Date: 02/03/11 20:34:00 >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 10:40:03 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:40:03 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <5A27B012-2F53-4820-8A36-5D3D43A070FA@btinternet.com> <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <28830C12-0030-456F-B97E-66007628BD7C@btinternet.com> Pass is not a bid. Surely you don't need to be told that, Herman? Gordon On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:32, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >> On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:27, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th >>> >>> lowest bid. >>> >> >> 11th? >> > > Pass, 1Cl, 1Di, 1He, 1Sp, 1NT, 2Cl, 2Di, 2He, 2Sp, 2NT = 11th > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3421 - Release Date: >> 02/03/11 20:34:00 >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 4 10:45:00 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:45:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <5A27B012-2F53-4820-8A36-5D3D43A070FA@btinternet.com> <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501cbc450$30ea4b80$92bee280$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > > On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:27, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th > >> > >> lowest bid. > >> > > > > 11th? > > > > Pass, 1Cl, 1Di, 1He, 1Sp, 1NT, 2Cl, 2Di, 2He, 2Sp, 2NT = 11th > Pass is a call, but not a bid. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 4 10:46:30 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:46:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <5A27B012-2F53-4820-8A36-5D3D43A070FA@btinternet.com> <4D4BC7A6.1020007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D4BCAF6.9060508@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2011/2/4 Herman De Wael: >> >> Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> >>> On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:27, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>>> BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th >>>> >>>> lowest bid. >>>> >>> >>> 11th? >>> >> >> Pass, 1Cl, 1Di, 1He, 1Sp, 1NT, 2Cl, 2Di, 2He, 2Sp, 2NT = 11th > > Ah, but Pass is a call, not a bid..... :) >> OK, Sorry! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 10:47:56 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:47:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <4D4BC76E.2050203@skynet.be> References: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> <1PlHZa-187TE00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <81BC2473-425A-4710-8557-ABBF1ADDCEC2@btinternet.com> <4D4BC76E.2050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <722F5FC4-55A3-4062-8C5D-0398C9B544E6@btinternet.com> I'm not sure why L79C should come into this. Nor do I see why having a short break causes a problem in the application of L92B - it might be an argument for having a regulation to vary the time, but if such a regulation hasn't been made we just follow the words of the law. So, you say it was out of time. They say they want to appeal. You organise an appeal on the subject of your reading of L92B, to be heard by the DIC. Then if they wish to appeal that, you organise an appeal with a committee, telling them of their limited powers under L93B3. If the committee nevertheless recommends that you change your ruling, and if you accept that recommendation, then it is time to organise an appeal on the L64C question. Gordon Rainsford On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:31, Herman De Wael wrote: > Something like this happened to me last saturday. > > I was called for a revoke ruling. I ruled one penalty trick and asked > the player if he believed that was enough. He told me it was. > During the second match of the day, the player (who was sitting out > that > match) came to me and said that they might make two extra tricks if > the > revoke had not occured (so the one trick penalty was insufficient). > So I > told him he was out of time, but I noted the time (there is a problem > here: there is just 15 minutes between matches, so how should the > period > from L79C be determined? > > So I was prepared to accept an appeal on the application of L79C. > > There was already at that time no need for this appeal envisaged. The > team were leading by 100 IMPs with 32 boards to play. > > Herman. > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> It seems to me that it it a matter of law or regulation that the TD >> has ruled the appeal out of time. So, when the players wish to appeal >> this, it should be heard in the first instance by the Director in >> Charge. Only once this appeal has been ruled on by the DIC might the >> players appeal further to a committee (who can only recommend that >> the director change his ruling). >> >> Was that procedure followed? If not, that might be the source of the >> problem. >> >> Gordon Rainsford >> >> >> On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:03, Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> From: Gordon Rainsford >>>> Who organised the appeal, if the TD had ruled it out of time? >>> >>> The TD of course. Being bound by Law 93 B3. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3421 - Release Date: >> 02/03/11 20:34:00 >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 10:52:56 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:52:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <4D4BC76E.2050203@skynet.be> References: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> <1PlHZa-187TE00@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> <81BC2473-425A-4710-8557-ABBF1ADDCEC2@btinternet.com> <4D4BC76E.2050203@skynet.be> Message-ID: They can always request an appeal within time, being prepared to withdraw it if it becomes unnecessary. Gordon Rainsford On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:31, Herman De Wael wrote: > There was already at that time no need for this appeal envisaged. The > team were leading by 100 IMPs with 32 boards to play. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110204/58cde188/attachment-0001.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 4 10:55:48 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:55:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Late_Appeal?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1PlIOK-1Bx3Ts0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: Gordon Rainsford > They can always request an appeal within time, being prepared to > withdraw it if it becomes unnecessary. That's expensive in Germany as they'ld lose 1/3 of the deposit ;-) > On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:31, Herman De Wael wrote: > > There was already at that time no need for this appeal envisaged. The > > team were leading by 100 IMPs with 32 boards to play. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 4 11:00:22 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:00:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Late_Appeal?= In-Reply-To: <722F5FC4-55A3-4062-8C5D-0398C9B544E6@btinternet.com> References: <722F5FC4-55A3-4062-8C5D-0398C9B544E6@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1PlISk-0GsJ5k0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> From: Gordon Rainsford > I'm not sure why L79C should come into this. Nor do I see why having > a short break causes a problem in the application of L92B - it might > be an argument for having a regulation to vary the time, but if such > a regulation hasn't been made we just follow the words of the law. > > So, you say it was out of time. They say they want to appeal. You > organise an appeal on the subject of your reading of L92B, to be > heard by the DIC. Then if they wish to appeal that, you organise an > appeal with a committee, telling them of their limited powers under > L93B3. If the committee nevertheless recommends that you change your > ruling, and if you accept that recommendation, then it is time to > organise an appeal on the L64C question. [Peter] ok, agreed on that. But, what are laws (or regulations) for, if a TD feels bound by a contradictory decision by an AC (and a recommendation to rule against the laws (or regulations)) ?? > On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:31, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Something like this happened to me last saturday. > > > > I was called for a revoke ruling. I ruled one penalty trick and > > asked the player if he believed that was enough. He told me it was. > > During the second match of the day, the player (who was sitting out > > that > > match) came to me and said that they might make two extra tricks if > > the > > revoke had not occured (so the one trick penalty was insufficient). > > So I > > told him he was out of time, but I noted the time (there is a > > problem here: there is just 15 minutes between matches, so how > > should the period > > from L79C be determined? > > > > > > So I was prepared to accept an appeal on the application of L79C. > > > > There was already at that time no need for this appeal envisaged. > > The team were leading by 100 IMPs with 32 boards to play. > > > > > > Herman. > > > > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> It seems to me that it it a matter of law or regulation that the TD > >> has ruled the appeal out of time. So, when the players wish to > appeal >> this, it should be heard in the first instance by the > Director in >> Charge. Only once this appeal has been ruled on by the > DIC might the >> players appeal further to a committee (who can only > recommend that >> the director change his ruling). > >> > >> Was that procedure followed? If not, that might be the source of > the >> problem. > >> > >> Gordon Rainsford > >> > >> > >> On 4 Feb 2011, at 09:03, Peter Eidt wrote: > >> > >>> From: Gordon Rainsford > >>>> Who organised the appeal, if the TD had ruled it out of time? >>> > >>> The TD of course. Being bound by Law 93 B3. From henk at ripe.net Fri Feb 4 11:05:28 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:05:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> References: <1PlGlp-0Vl9E00@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <79835F6B-2159-4FB6-8FF6-375A607C94F3@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4D4BCF68.2000009@ripe.net> > On 4 Feb 2011, at 08:11, Peter Eidt wrote: >> The TD states on the appeals form that the appeal is out of time >> and informs the appeals committee specifically about this fact. >> Nevertheless the appeals committee holds the trial and assigns >> an adjusted score. >> >> What is a TD expected to do in this scenario? >> >> 1. According to Law 93 B1 he may/shall/must (?) rule "too late". >> But this ruling may still be appealed. So an AC will have to work. >> >> 2. If this AC works _and_ decides to deal with the original >> late appeal _and_ decides to change a former TD ruling, >> shall the TD >> a) accept this AC ruling as a legal score adjustment? or >> b) refuse this AC ruling referring to Law 93 B3? 2B for me and explain to the AC that there are things that they cannot do. BTW, I would not expect an AC here to deal with the case in the first place if the TD tells that it is too late. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 11:14:06 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:14:06 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <1PlISk-0GsJ5k0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <722F5FC4-55A3-4062-8C5D-0398C9B544E6@btinternet.com> <1PlISk-0GsJ5k0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <8465E1F0-5F32-4ECE-8718-FBC5A227722F@btinternet.com> On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:00, Peter Eidt wrote: > [Peter] > ok, agreed on that. > But, what are laws (or regulations) for, if a TD feels > bound by a contradictory decision by an AC (and a > recommendation to rule against the laws (or regulations)) ?? What I am saying is that if the TD follows the regulations properly, he shouldn't get himself into that situation. Don't organise an appeal that you consider to be out of time, before organising an appeal on the subject of your ruling that it is out of time. Once you've allowed the committee to produce a ruling, it's very hard to say that it has no validity. On the general point of accepting an AC's recommendation to change a ruling, I think you would be well-advised not to go against them without very good reason, backed up by advice from others. If it happened to me, I'd make a phone call to the WBF Chief TD to see whether he thought I should refuse their recommendation! Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110204/0dd02733/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 4 11:18:42 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:18:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D4BD282.5020407@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/02/2011 10:22, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 07:27 PM 4/02/2011, you wrote: >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> I still have Very good reason to believe that Grattan had a >>> blind spot in his analysis. >>> >>> Brown Sticker convention = subset of convention >>> convention = subset of partnership methods >>> partnership methods = mutual to both partners >>> >>> but..... >>> >>> psyche = unilateral by one partner >>> >>> Grattan would be correct that 2NT was an illegal Brown Sticker >>> convention if Ali-Hills had mutually agreed that when 2NT >>> occurred it would Systemically show 13 random cards. But what >>> Ali-Hills actually agreed was that 2NT was Non-Systemic -- 2NT >>> would never-ever be opened -- thus rendering the Ali-Hills >>> system non-Brown Sticker and hence legal. >>> >>> What's the problem? >>> >> That when you agree that 2NT would never ever be opened, and you then >> open it, you have told your partner that he can expect anything, hence, >> 13 random cards, hence, a brown sticker convention. >> >> If OTOH you agree that 2NT shows X, and then open it on 13 random cards, >> your partner has no reason to suspect anything but X. Now his only true >> answer is: "we have agreed never to open 2NT, so he now has 13 cards". >> >> BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th >> lowest bid. Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not >> 2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? AG : the answer to this is easy : if you hold, say, long diamonds, 3D is more efficient as a preempt than 2NT is. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Feb 4 11:25:47 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:25:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Late_Appeal?= In-Reply-To: <8465E1F0-5F32-4ECE-8718-FBC5A227722F@btinternet.com> References: <8465E1F0-5F32-4ECE-8718-FBC5A227722F@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <1PlIrL-1yooLI0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: Gordon Rainsford > On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:00, Peter Eidt wrote: > ok, agreed on that. > But, what are laws (or regulations) for, if a TD feels > bound by a contradictory decision by an AC (and a > recommendation to rule against the laws (or regulations)) ?? > > What I am saying is that if the TD follows the regulations properly, > he shouldn't get himself into that situation. Don't organise an appeal > that you consider to be out of time, before organising an appeal on > the subject of your ruling that it is out of time. Once you've allowed > the committee to produce a ruling, it's very hard to say that it has > no validity. > On the general point of accepting an AC's recommendation to change a > ruling, I think you would be well-advised not to go against them > without very good reason, backed up by advice from others. If it > happened to me, I'd make a phone call to the WBF Chief TD to see > whether he thought I should refuse their recommendation! Thanks Gordon, this is exactly my point. The TD (even if highly experienced and certified) is indeed well-advised to follow an AC's recommendation, because otherwise he might get banned by the respective TO (or members of that AC) in the future. Unfortunately in Germany the telephone procedures working well in the EBU are not implemented - surely it would be better they were. And we have no WBF CTD in Germany ;-) From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Feb 4 11:31:46 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:31:46 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal In-Reply-To: <1PlIrL-1yooLI0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <8465E1F0-5F32-4ECE-8718-FBC5A227722F@btinternet.com> <1PlIrL-1yooLI0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:25, Peter Eidt wrote: > this is exactly my point. > The TD (even if highly experienced and certified) is indeed > well-advised to follow an AC's recommendation, because > otherwise he might get banned by the respective TO (or > members of that AC) in the future. > Unfortunately in Germany the telephone procedures working > well in the EBU are not implemented - surely it would be > better they were. And we have no WBF CTD in Germany ;-) Sure, but the point remains (with which it seems you are in agreement) that it would not be a good idea to go against a committee's recommendation without having very strong/distinguished support. Where you get that support from will vary from country to country. Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110204/781ed2ab/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 4 15:32:47 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:32:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason In-Reply-To: <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <9BDC67D9-5F5D-443A-A2F7-88F282A1C282@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2011, at 4:22 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 07:27 PM 4/02/2011, you wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> I still have Very good reason to believe that Grattan had a >>> blind spot in his analysis. >>> >>> Brown Sticker convention = subset of convention >>> convention = subset of partnership methods >>> partnership methods = mutual to both partners >>> >>> but..... >>> >>> psyche = unilateral by one partner >>> >>> Grattan would be correct that 2NT was an illegal Brown Sticker >>> convention if Ali-Hills had mutually agreed that when 2NT >>> occurred it would Systemically show 13 random cards. But what >>> Ali-Hills actually agreed was that 2NT was Non-Systemic -- 2NT >>> would never-ever be opened -- thus rendering the Ali-Hills >>> system non-Brown Sticker and hence legal. >> >> That when you agree that 2NT would never ever be opened, and you then >> open it, you have told your partner that he can expect anything, >> hence, >> 13 random cards, hence, a brown sticker convention. >> >> If OTOH you agree that 2NT shows X, and then open it on 13 random >> cards, >> your partner has no reason to suspect anything but X. Now his only >> true >> answer is: "we have agreed never to open 2NT, so he now has 13 >> cards". >> >> BTW, just out of curiosity, why would you choose to abandon the 11th >> lowest bid. Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why >> not >> 2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? >> >> Herman De Wael > > I am more worried about the possibility that against > a top team, the known psycher Richard Hills has > tuned his partner to wonder "when is it coming". > > That is what I would be doing and I hope partner > would not be prepared. How on Earth does one "prepare" for an opening bid that shows 13 random cards, even if one does know it's coming? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 4 16:06:35 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:06:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason In-Reply-To: <9BDC67D9-5F5D-443A-A2F7-88F282A1C282@starpower.net> References: <4D4BB857.2070703@skynet.be> <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9BDC67D9-5F5D-443A-A2F7-88F282A1C282@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901cbc47d$1df60690$59e213b0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................ > How on Earth does one "prepare" for an opening bid that shows 13 random cards, > even if one does know it's coming? Precisely the same way as one can "prepare" for an opening bid (regardless of what it "shows") made by a player who evidently has not looked at his cards before bidding. The only difference in such a case is that one can call the director and claim violation of law 7B2. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 4 20:12:53 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:12:53 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: [Adam Beneschan] The reason it's not in the "definitions" is that it isn't part of a definition. ?I get the impression that you want the "Definitions" section to contain useful facts that aren't definitions because it would be more convenient for you if they were there. [Jerry] Yes, thanks, that's it. [Adam] ?I can certainly understand that this fact (that declarer may not have a penalty card) may be the sort of thing that would be useful to see in a convenient place, and it isn't right now. [Jerry] Right. [Adam] ?But that doesn't mean it belongs in the "Definitions" section. ?(Although I could see putting it there as a footnote, or in parentheses, or something like that.) [Jerry] All true, and I like your parenthetical idea. [Adam] Maybe we have a misunderstanding about what the definition of "definition" is. [Jerry] Well, I am a mathematician, so I may have a high of a standard of what constitutes a definition. To me, the current "Definitions" section of the laws contains many entries that are not definitions at all, including *bid*, where I would deduce that no artificial call is ever a bid if I really thought that the definitions section contained nothing but definitions. I don't mean this to be critical of the law book; the writers wanted a brief title for the section, and "Definitions" was a probably good choice. The current description of penalty card in the Definitions section is "A card subject to disposition under Law 50," and I think it could be improved to help people who are not already excellent directors. What do you think of this?--- Penalty card: A defender's card subject to disposition under Law 50. Adding this one word (i.e., "defender's") would save time for many readers. To further help readers who are not genius directors (like me), you could even add a second helpful sentence listing the kinds of "premature exposure" that can cause a defender's card to become a penalty card. Currently, they are scattered throughout TFLB, as I mentioned before. [Sven] Law 50 is not the definition of a penalty card. The definition is: Penalty card - a card subject to disposition under Law 50. [Jerry] OK, but it seems a bit circular, and therefore not as helpful as it could be. [Sven] And Law 50 further describes this as: A card prematurely exposed (but not led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise [Sven] What is your problem? [Jerry] Nice question. Adam understood what I was trying to get at pretty well. And he expressed it better. I was trying to expand on what Richard Hills wrote (as OP). I might also suggest changing the "definition" of bid to something like this (similar to law 18): Bid: An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.) That I consider a decent definition, and also a better description for the definitions section of the law book. It seems an improvement over what we have now, which is this: [TFLB bid definition] An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 4 21:21:10 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:21:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> On Behalf Of Jerry > Fusselman > Sent: 4. februar 2011 20:13 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards > > [Adam Beneschan] The reason it's not in the "definitions" is that it isn't part of a > definition. ?I get the impression that you want the "Definitions" section to contain > useful facts that aren't definitions because it would be more convenient for you if > they were there. > > [Jerry] Yes, thanks, that's it. > > [Adam] ?I can certainly understand that this fact (that declarer may not have a > penalty card) may be the sort of thing that would be useful to see in a convenient > place, and it isn't right now. > > [Jerry] Right. > > [Adam] ?But that doesn't mean it belongs in the "Definitions" section. > ?(Although I could see putting it there as a footnote, or in parentheses, or > something like that.) > > [Jerry] All true, and I like your parenthetical idea. > > [Adam] Maybe we have a misunderstanding about what the definition of > "definition" is. > > [Jerry] > > Well, I am a mathematician, so I may have a high of a standard of what constitutes > a definition. To me, the current "Definitions" section of the laws contains many > entries that are not definitions at all, including *bid*, where I would deduce that no > artificial call is ever a bid if I really thought that the definitions section contained > nothing but definitions. > > I don't mean this to be critical of the law book; the writers wanted a brief title for > the section, and "Definitions" was a probably good choice. > > The current description of penalty card in the Definitions section is "A card subject > to disposition under Law 50," and I think it could be improved to help people who > are not already excellent directors. What do you think of this?--- > > Penalty card: A defender's card subject to disposition under Law 50. > > Adding this one word (i.e., "defender's") would save time for many readers. > > To further help readers who are not genius directors (like me), you could even > add a second helpful sentence listing the kinds of "premature exposure" that can > cause a defender's card to become a penalty card. Currently, they are scattered > throughout TFLB, as I mentioned before. > > [Sven] Law 50 is not the definition of a penalty card. The definition is: Penalty > card - a card subject to disposition under Law 50. > > [Jerry] OK, but it seems a bit circular, and therefore not as helpful as it could be. > > [Sven] And Law 50 further describes this as: A card prematurely exposed (but not > led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates > otherwise > > [Sven] What is your problem? > > [Jerry] > > Nice question. Adam understood what I was trying to get at pretty well. And he > expressed it better. I was trying to expand on what Richard Hills wrote (as OP). > > I might also suggest changing the "definition" of bid to something like this (similar > to law 18): > > Bid: An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a > denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.) > > That I consider a decent definition, and also a better description for the definitions > section of the law book. It seems an improvement over what we have now, which > is this: > > [TFLB bid definition] An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd > tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. I fully recognize your statement that you are a mathematician from the rest of your writings. And I am myself very familiar with mathematics including the formal definitions of various computer programming languages. But the "bridge language" is neither a mathematical language nor a programming language and the definitions in the laws on bridge are not syntax definitions. "An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a denomination" is perfect as a bridge language syntax definition, but "An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination." is probably a better definition of what a bid is. The precise syntax for bids are then specified in the relevant laws. That the bid 4NT is usually meant as asking for the number of aces held rather than an undertaking to take ten tricks with no trump doesn't change the fact that this is precisely the literal meaning of that clause. Similarly the definition of a penalty card would be far too complex and voluminous if it should include all relevant characteristics of a penalty card; instead it refers to the particular law on penalty cards. Note that your suggestion would be deficient in that it depends on the definition of defender without any reservation. Defender is defined as an opponent of "presumed declarer"; however there is no penalty card until "presumed declarer" is replaced by "declarer", i.e. after the opening lead has been made face up. And the term "presumed declarer" isn't even defined in "definitions"! From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 5 18:09:46 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:09:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 7:12 PM Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards [Jerry] I don't mean this to be critical of the law book; the writers wanted a brief title for the section, and "Definitions" was a probably good choice. +=+ Way back in history someone decided we needed a chapter of 'Definitions'. No-one has thought fit to change the name. It could be retiled "Explanations of some terms employed" or something like that. Perhaps we should put such a definition as a subtitle under the heading 'Definitions'. Or perhaps what we have is fit for purpose anyway. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Feb 5 19:18:20 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 12:18:20 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> Message-ID: Thanks, Sven and Grattan. OK, which is better in the Definitions section? Penalty card: A card subject to disposition under Law 50. Penalty card: A defender's card subject to disposition under Law 50. Jerry Fusselman From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 6 01:21:07 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 19:21:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> Message-ID: I would prefer, "A defender's exposed card subject to disposition under Law 50," as that is a more complete definition. "Defender" is important, as a card exposed during the auction does not become a penalty card until its holder becomes a defender. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards > Thanks, Sven and Grattan. OK, which is better in the Definitions section? > > Penalty card: A card subject to disposition under Law 50. > > Penalty card: A defender's card subject to disposition under Law 50. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 6 02:49:28 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:49:28 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> Message-ID: David Grabiner just wrote: > I would prefer, "A defender's exposed card subject to disposition under Law 50," > as that is a more complete definition. ?"Defender" is important, as a card > exposed during the auction does not become a penalty card until its holder > becomes a defender. > Yes, David's idea seems much better. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 6 06:17:28 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 23:17:28 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Bid Message-ID: The quotes are from "Declarer cannot have penalty cards" On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: 4. februar 2011 20:13 >> >> [Jerry] I would deduce that no >> artificial call is ever a bid if I really thought that the definitions >> section contained nothing but definitions. > > "An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a > denomination" is perfect as a bridge language syntax definition, but "An > undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in > excess of six) in a specified denomination." is probably a better definition > of what a bid is. The precise syntax for bids are then specified in the > relevant laws. That the bid 4NT is usually meant as asking for the number of > aces held rather than an undertaking to take ten tricks with no trump > doesn't change the fact that this is precisely the literal meaning of that > clause. I don't see it exactly this way. I will illustrate briefly what I said above. We currently have this: [Definition] Artificial call: A bid, double or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named, or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength or promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. [Definition] Bid: An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. Now, let us see what a LOL's Blackwood 4NT is by these definitions. Since it is not a willingness to play in no trump, it is an artificial call by these definitions. But it is not a bid either, because it is not an undertaking to win at least 10 tricks in a no trump contract. Since this nonsensical conclusion came from following the Definitions, my conclusion is that TFLB's definition of _artificial call_ is pretty good, but its definition of _bid_ is not. With me so far? How about the definition that Sven rejected? I.e.--- [Suggested definition] Bid: An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a denomination. Well, 4NT certainly fits the suggested definition, regardless of what was intended when 4NT was bid. This seems a better definition. I prefer a definition of _bid_ that does not need to know the purpose of the bid: It is common sense that we should not have to know the purpose of the bid before we know whether or not it was a bid. It also seems a lot better because the word bid appears in the definition of _artificial call_. Obviously, _bid_ is a simpler concept that _artificial call_. TFLB's definition of bid is even worse than I have hinted so far, for it seems to preclude the possibility of a sacrifice bid. And it worse than that too, for it seems to emphasize the intention of the bidder and therefore sounds to me like a needless attempt at mind reading. What is this "undertaking"? A bid is a number and a denomination. Period. Is it really that simple? Trying to anticipate a counter argument, let me cite one more Definition from TFLB: [Definition] Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass. I am half afraid that someone will write this: "We must mention intention in our definition of Bid, for otherwise, how would we know the difference between a bid of 1C and an explanation of the auction that includes the phrase `1C'?" My answer would be that that kind of precision is what the laws are for, and besides, you were not at all careful about your definition of call, for the word "double" might also come up while describing the meaning of the past auction with being part of the current auction. I tried to address this issue with the phrase "An auction statement ..." in my suggested Definition of Bid. Did I succeed? It makes sense to me to make the Definition of Bid just as simple and straightforward as the Definition of Call. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 6 19:32:24 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:32:24 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > I fully recognize your statement that you are a mathematician from the rest > of your writings. Laughing. If Sven hopes for my sake that my math is better than my English, I understand. > > And I am myself very familiar with mathematics including the formal > definitions of various computer programming languages. > > But the "bridge language" is neither a mathematical language nor a > programming language [...] True, but ideally, the wording in TFLB would satisfy people from as many backgrounds as possible, even including lawyers and mathematicians. > > Similarly the definition of a penalty card would be far too complex and > voluminous if it should include all relevant characteristics of a penalty > card; instead it refers to the particular law on penalty cards. OK, but there is no single particular law on penalty cards. It seems to me that laws 14, 24, 45, 47, 49, 57, 58, 60, 62, and 68 cover what *creates* a penalty card. Law 48 tells us something that is not a penalty card. Laws 50--52 tell us what to *do* with them. Law 50, combined with the existing "Definition" of penalty card, is nowhere near a definition of a penalty card. The situation of what constitutes a penalty card is one of true complexity, involving laws 14, 24, 45, 47, 48, 49, 57, 58, 60, 62, and 68. That is just a fact, though it takes some time to figure it out. So the choice is whether to confess that complexity in the Definitions section or not. I think it is better to list these law numbers there, but I don't feel that strongly about it. Sven says that it is better to let the reader be on his own to discover this over time, and that providing a list of law numbers there is too complex. That might be the majority opinion. But we would be kidding ourselves to think that Law 50 + the Definition tells us what creates a penalty card. > > Note that your suggestion would be deficient in that it depends on the > definition of defender without any reservation. Defender is defined as an > opponent of "presumed declarer"; however there is no penalty card until > "presumed declarer" is replaced by "declarer", i.e. after the opening lead > has been made face up. And the term "presumed declarer" isn't even defined > in "definitions"! > [Definitions] Defender: An opponent of (presumed) declarer. Why is the word _presumed_ here? I might suggest removing it. I don't see why the difference between presumed declarer and actual declarer matters for defining who the defenders are. The defenders are the same regardless of which partner becomes declarer. Thus, David's suggestion from yesterday seems best to me now if we are limited to one sentence: [suggested Definition] Penalty card. A defender's exposed card subject to disposition under Law 50. [current Definition] Penalty card. A card subject to disposition under Law 50. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 6 22:11:42 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 22:11:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> Message-ID: <002701cbc642$74c9bb30$5e5d3190$@no> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman .............. > [Definitions] Defender: An opponent of (presumed) declarer. > > Why is the word _presumed_ here? I might suggest removing it. I agree, that would have been better > I don't see why the difference between presumed declarer and actual declarer > matters for defining who the defenders are. The defenders are the same > regardless of which partner becomes declarer. Thus, David's suggestion from > yesterday seems best to me now if we are limited to one sentence: "Presumed" declarer caters for the possibility that who is at some time "presumed" declarer can very well eventually become a defender. So the laws should (possibly better than they do today) distinguish between presumed declarer and declarer, presumed declaring side and declaring side, and finally presumed defender(s) and defender(s). If you do not immediately grasp the importance then try to figure out how and why it is important! Hint: Law 21B2 together with Law 22B1 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 6 23:49:43 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:49:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >>Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not >>2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? Richard Hills: Yes and no. In order for partner to be caught unawares by my psyche, therefore making my psyche legal because "partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", there had to be Very good bridge reasons for the gap in our opening calls. Most of the Ali-Hills opening calls were unchanged, but the Very good relay reasons for the differences were -> Standard Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls Pass = a (relay response 1C) 1D = b + c + d (relay response 1H) 2H = x 2S = y 2NT = z Asia Cup Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls changes The CoC prohibited opening x, y or z at the two level, so: Pass = a + x + y + z (relay response 1C) 1D = b (relay response 1H) 2H = c (relay response 2NT) 2S = d (relay response 2NT) 2NT = non-systemic Tony Musgrove: >I am more worried about the possibility that against a top >team, the known psycher Richard Hills has tuned his partner >to wonder "when is it coming". > >That is what I would be doing and I hope partner would not >be prepared. Edmund Blackadder: "Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words 'I have a cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation?" Richard Hills: Hashmat Ali noticed that (because of the super-scientific Ali-Hills relay methods) more imps were gained on average when Richard Hills did not psyche than when he did. Thus Hashmat extracted a promise from the known psycher before the Asia Cup commenced that the known psycher would never- never-never psyche in future. Hashmat's ill-deserved confidence was essential for the legality of his partner's Cunning Plan to open a non-systemic psychic 2NT. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 7 04:03:15 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 14:03:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <201102040923.p149N3dZ014072@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <201102070303.p1733T1C025550@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> >Tony Musgrove: > > >I am more worried about the possibility that against a top > >team, the known psycher Richard Hills has tuned his partner > >to wonder "when is it coming". > > > >That is what I would be doing and I hope partner would not > >be prepared. > >Edmund Blackadder: > >"Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words 'I have a >cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the >direction of this conversation?" > >Richard Hills: > >Hashmat Ali noticed that (because of the super-scientific >Ali-Hills relay methods) more imps were gained on average >when Richard Hills did not psyche than when he did. Thus >Hashmat extracted a promise from the known psycher before >the Asia Cup commenced that the known psycher would never- >never-never psyche in future. Hashmat's ill-deserved >confidence was essential for the legality of his partner's >Cunning Plan to open a non-systemic psychic 2NT. I hate to imagine the loss of face experienced by the number 1 team after being pre-alerted by the Hills-Ali pair that "we have explicitly agreed not to psyche against better pairs", Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 7 06:34:20 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:34:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Late Appeal [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1PlGlp-0Vl9E00@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt: >..... >The tournament consists of 3 sessions. Session 1 and 2 build a >qualification stage after that the leading 40 pairs play in >flight A and the remaining pairs play in flight B. The >regulations (and the CoC) are silent in regard to special >appeals procedures. > >One pair received a TD decision in session 1 (Saturday >afternoon), which they do no like any more on Sunday morning >(before session 3 = final). Now they appeal. > >The TD states on the appeals form that the appeal is out of >time and informs the appeals committee specifically about this >fact. Nevertheless the appeals committee holds the trial and >assigns an adjusted score. > >What is a TD expected to do in this scenario? >..... Richard Hills: Trick question, Director's error at an earlier point in time. Hop into a TARDIS to time travel back to..... TD(octor Who): >.....Now they attempt to appeal. > >The TD states to the potential appellants that they are out of >time to appeal the TD's first ruling, but that they are not >out of time to appeal the TD's second ruling of out of time. > >However, although the potential appellants may timely appeal >the second ruling of out of time, because the second ruling is >a matter of Law 79C, the TD informs the potential appellants >that the AC may not reverse the TD's decision, due to Law 93B3. > >But the TD also informs the potential appellants (and also the >AC, if the appeal progresses), that although the AC lacks the >power to reverse the TD on a matter of Law, the AC retains the >weaker power of recommending to the TD that the TD reinterpret >Law 79C and reverse the polarity of the neutron flow. Best wishes Vislor Turlough -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 7 08:55:54 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 08:55:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D4FA58A.9070609@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >>> Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not >>> 2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? > > the differences were -> > > Standard Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls > > Pass = a (relay response 1C) > 1D = b + c + d (relay response 1H) > 2H = x > 2S = y > 2NT = z > > Asia Cup Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls changes > > The CoC prohibited opening x, y or z at the two level, so: > > Pass = a + x + y + z (relay response 1C) > 1D = b (relay response 1H) > 2H = c (relay response 2NT) > 2S = d (relay response 2NT) > 2NT = non-systemic > OK, I'll accept this as good enough a reason for there to be a gap in the system. > > Hashmat Ali noticed that (because of the super-scientific > Ali-Hills relay methods) more imps were gained on average > when Richard Hills did not psyche than when he did. Thus > Hashmat extracted a promise from the known psycher before > the Asia Cup commenced that the known psycher would never- > never-never psyche in future. Hashmat's ill-deserved > confidence was essential for the legality of his partner's > Cunning Plan to open a non-systemic psychic 2NT. > So not only did Richard break his promise, he did so in a way that partner could not fail to notice! I see this as being far more wrong that a certain player's hebit of opening 1He in third seat. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Feb 7 08:57:08 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 07:57:08 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D7EF114-B931-4E4D-AB84-A51D84138B17@btinternet.com> There are several Australian contributors at IBLF, though perhaps they are not "gurus". One of them tells us that the Australian bidding box regulations, at http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFwbbb10.pdf, make a distinction between a call selected and a call made, and that this is interpreted so that once a call has been made a player is denied his L25A1 right to correct an unintended call. Have you encountered such a thing, Richard? Gordon Rainsford On 1 Feb 2011, at 01:09, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Yes, it is risky for a newbie Director to seek advice from > merely one guru wielding a Big Black Rod, as that newbie > Director is unaware of the singular guru's blind spots.(1) > > But with several gurus, such blind spots are cancelled out. > > For example, the English guru David Stevenson is one of the > many gurus (including the American guru, Ed Reppert) who > contribute to general discussion online at the ABDA website. > > http://www.abda.org.au/forum/index.php#1 > > David S had a parochial blind spot, assuming that the English > definition of "logical alternative" was necessarily identical > to the Aussie definition. A newbie Director visiting IBLF > would not have become aware of the error, as IBLF lacks any > Aussie guru to correct David S. But on the ABDA website the > error was indeed quickly corrected by an Aussie guru. > > The Australian Bridge Directors Association online fora are > partially accessible to non-subscribers who wish to visit; > plus there are also resources at: > > http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110207/19b008de/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 7 09:12:12 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:12:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > > >>Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not > >>2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? > > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. In order for partner to be caught unawares by > my psyche, therefore making my psyche legal because "partner > has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have > the opponents", there had to be Very good bridge reasons for > the gap in our opening calls. Most of the Ali-Hills opening > calls were unchanged, but the Very good relay reasons for > the differences were -> > > Standard Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls > > Pass = a (relay response 1C) > 1D = b + c + d (relay response 1H) > 2H = x > 2S = y > 2NT = z > > Asia Cup Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls changes > > The CoC prohibited opening x, y or z at the two level, so: > > Pass = a + x + y + z (relay response 1C) > 1D = b (relay response 1H) > 2H = c (relay response 2NT) > 2S = d (relay response 2NT) > 2NT = non-systemic > > Tony Musgrove: > > >I am more worried about the possibility that against a top > >team, the known psycher Richard Hills has tuned his partner > >to wonder "when is it coming". > > > >That is what I would be doing and I hope partner would not > >be prepared. > > Edmund Blackadder: > > "Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words 'I have a > cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the > direction of this conversation?" > > Richard Hills: > > Hashmat Ali noticed that (because of the super-scientific > Ali-Hills relay methods) more imps were gained on average > when Richard Hills did not psyche than when he did. Thus > Hashmat extracted a promise from the known psycher before > the Asia Cup commenced that the known psycher would never- > never-never psyche in future. Hashmat's ill-deserved > confidence was essential for the legality of his partner's > Cunning Plan to open a non-systemic psychic 2NT. I think that in this example (nonvul vs. vul, and a clearly non-systemic bid) it should pretty obvious to everybody at the table that 2NT likely is some sort of psyche, rather a misbid. One would furthermore expect that psychic 2NT likely to be based on some subset of "0-16 HCP, any six card suit". Given that the Hills-Ali partnership has agreed on never opening 2NT, and assuming that a weak 2NT opening showing something like "any three level preempt" would be prohibited at the contest (like via a "no known four card suit" rule), can Richard then legally make such a 2NT psyche? Thomas From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 7 09:35:22 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:35:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4D7EF114-B931-4E4D-AB84-A51D84138B17@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <0E157C034321464984F5D232901C02AA@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> Message-ID: <4D4FBD09.50306@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/02/2011 21:21, Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Jerry >> Fusselman >> Sent: 4. februar 2011 20:13 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards >> >> [Adam Beneschan] The reason it's not in the "definitions" is that it isn't > part of a >> definition. I get the impression that you want the "Definitions" section > to contain >> useful facts that aren't definitions because it would be more convenient > for you if >> they were there. >> >> [Jerry] Yes, thanks, that's it. >> >> [Adam] I can certainly understand that this fact (that declarer may not > have a >> penalty card) may be the sort of thing that would be useful to see in a > convenient >> place, and it isn't right now. >> >> [Jerry] Right. >> >> [Adam] But that doesn't mean it belongs in the "Definitions" section. >> (Although I could see putting it there as a footnote, or in parentheses, > or >> something like that.) >> >> [Jerry] All true, and I like your parenthetical idea. >> >> [Adam] Maybe we have a misunderstanding about what the definition of >> "definition" is. >> >> [Jerry] >> >> Well, I am a mathematician, so I may have a high of a standard of what > constitutes >> a definition. To me, the current "Definitions" section of the laws > contains many >> entries that are not definitions at all, including *bid*, where I would > deduce that no >> artificial call is ever a bid if I really thought that the definitions > section contained >> nothing but definitions. >> >> I don't mean this to be critical of the law book; the writers wanted a > brief title for >> the section, and "Definitions" was a probably good choice. >> >> The current description of penalty card in the Definitions section is "A > card subject >> to disposition under Law 50," and I think it could be improved to help > people who >> are not already excellent directors. What do you think of this?--- >> >> Penalty card: A defender's card subject to disposition under Law 50. >> >> Adding this one word (i.e., "defender's") would save time for many > readers. >> To further help readers who are not genius directors (like me), you could > even >> add a second helpful sentence listing the kinds of "premature exposure" > that can >> cause a defender's card to become a penalty card. Currently, they are > scattered >> throughout TFLB, as I mentioned before. >> >> [Sven] Law 50 is not the definition of a penalty card. The definition > is: Penalty >> card - a card subject to disposition under Law 50. >> >> [Jerry] OK, but it seems a bit circular, and therefore not as helpful as > it could be. >> [Sven] And Law 50 further describes this as: A card prematurely exposed > (but not >> led, see Law 57) by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director > designates >> otherwise >> >> [Sven] What is your problem? >> >> [Jerry] >> >> Nice question. Adam understood what I was trying to get at pretty well. > And he >> expressed it better. I was trying to expand on what Richard Hills wrote > (as OP). >> I might also suggest changing the "definition" of bid to something like > this (similar >> to law 18): >> >> Bid: An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a >> denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.) >> >> That I consider a decent definition, and also a better description for the > definitions >> section of the law book. It seems an improvement over what we have now, > which >> is this: >> >> [TFLB bid definition] An undertaking to win at least a specified number > of odd >> tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. > I fully recognize your statement that you are a mathematician from the rest > of your writings. > > And I am myself very familiar with mathematics including the formal > definitions of various computer programming languages. > > But the "bridge language" is neither a mathematical language nor a > programming language and the definitions in the laws on bridge are not > syntax definitions. > > "An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a > denomination" is perfect as a bridge language syntax definition, but "An > undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in > excess of six) in a specified denomination." is probably a better definition > of what a bid is. The precise syntax for bids are then specified in the > relevant laws. That the bid 4NT is usually meant as asking for the number of > aces held rather than an undertaking to take ten tricks with no trump > doesn't change the fact that this is precisely the literal meaning of that > clause. AG : but it isn't what the player endeavours, so in practice the word "undertaking" is wrong. I vote for Jerry's suggestion. As definitions are there to be used, I think the practical aspect is important. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 7 10:59:20 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:59:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D4FC278.4090309@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/02/2011 23:49, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Herman De Wael: > > [snip] > >>> Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not >>> 2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? > Richard Hills: > > Yes and no. In order for partner to be caught unawares by > my psyche, therefore making my psyche legal because "partner > has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have > the opponents", there had to be Very good bridge reasons for > the gap in our opening calls. Most of the Ali-Hills opening > calls were unchanged, but the Very good relay reasons for > the differences were -> > > Standard Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls > > Pass = a (relay response 1C) > 1D = b + c + d (relay response 1H) > 2H = x > 2S = y > 2NT = z > > Asia Cup Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls changes > > The CoC prohibited opening x, y or z at the two level, so: > > Pass = a + x + y + z (relay response 1C) > 1D = b (relay response 1H) > 2H = c (relay response 2NT) > 2S = d (relay response 2NT) > 2NT = non-systemic > > Tony Musgrove: > >> I am more worried about the possibility that against a top >> team, the known psycher Richard Hills has tuned his partner >> to wonder "when is it coming". >> >> That is what I would be doing and I hope partner would not >> be prepared. > Edmund Blackadder: > > "Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words 'I have a > cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the > direction of this conversation?" > > Richard Hills: > > Hashmat Ali noticed that (because of the super-scientific > Ali-Hills relay methods) more imps were gained on average > when Richard Hills did not psyche than when he did. Thus > Hashmat extracted a promise from the known psycher before > the Asia Cup commenced that the known psycher would never- > never-never psyche in future. Hashmat's ill-deserved > confidence was essential for the legality of his partner's > Cunning Plan to open a non-systemic psychic 2NT. AG : there remains one question : if the set of informations given by the 2NT opening in your Asia Cup version is the empty sret, how can a 2NT opening be a psyche, as you'll need that the set of characteristics of the hand you held to be significantly different from what the bid shows. In other words, for the hand to be very different from the hand that was systematically advertised, something had to be advertised. IMOBO we need a special class (other than just "psyche") for a purely non-systemic bid. Would you classify 1NT-2H-5D (in a classical system) as a psyche ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 7 11:05:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:05:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D4FC3EE.5070405@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/02/2011 9:12, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Herman De Wael: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Presumably you attach meanings to 3Cl, 3Di, .., so why not >>>> 2NT? In order to perform this non-psyche, perhaps? >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yes and no. In order for partner to be caught unawares by >> my psyche, therefore making my psyche legal because "partner >> has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have >> the opponents", there had to be Very good bridge reasons for >> the gap in our opening calls. Most of the Ali-Hills opening >> calls were unchanged, but the Very good relay reasons for >> the differences were -> >> >> Standard Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls >> >> Pass = a (relay response 1C) >> 1D = b + c + d (relay response 1H) >> 2H = x >> 2S = y >> 2NT = z >> >> Asia Cup Symmetric Relay system Opening Calls changes >> >> The CoC prohibited opening x, y or z at the two level, so: >> >> Pass = a + x + y + z (relay response 1C) >> 1D = b (relay response 1H) >> 2H = c (relay response 2NT) >> 2S = d (relay response 2NT) >> 2NT = non-systemic >> >> Tony Musgrove: >> >>> I am more worried about the possibility that against a top >>> team, the known psycher Richard Hills has tuned his partner >>> to wonder "when is it coming". >>> >>> That is what I would be doing and I hope partner would not >>> be prepared. >> Edmund Blackadder: >> >> "Am I jumping the gun, Baldrick, or are the words 'I have a >> cunning plan' marching with ill-deserved confidence in the >> direction of this conversation?" >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Hashmat Ali noticed that (because of the super-scientific >> Ali-Hills relay methods) more imps were gained on average >> when Richard Hills did not psyche than when he did. Thus >> Hashmat extracted a promise from the known psycher before >> the Asia Cup commenced that the known psycher would never- >> never-never psyche in future. Hashmat's ill-deserved >> confidence was essential for the legality of his partner's >> Cunning Plan to open a non-systemic psychic 2NT. > I think that in this example (nonvul vs. vul, and a clearly non-systemic bid) > it should pretty obvious to everybody at the table that 2NT likely is some sort of > psyche, rather a misbid. > > One would furthermore expect that psychic 2NT likely to be based > on some subset of "0-16 HCP, any six card suit". > > Given that the Hills-Ali partnership has agreed on never opening 2NT, > and assuming that a weak 2NT opening showing something like > "any three level preempt" would be prohibited at the contest (like via a "no known > four card suit" rule), can Richard then legally make such a 2NT psyche? > AG : if this is the case, ands as usual, it is difficult to distinguish between a misbid (Richard bidding in the old system due to life-long habits) and a psyche. And partner would have reasons to guess what happened, which would probably make them liable to a penalty if he just answered "non-systemic". Anyway, as I said in a previous message, an impossible bid can hardly be classified as a psyche. I'm going to be severe : if the pair says that they never open 2NT, and they thereafter do it, I might well judge that they gave false information. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 7 13:56:13 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 13:56:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > > I think that in this example (nonvul vs. vul, and a clearly non-systemic bid) > it should pretty obvious to everybody at the table that 2NT likely is some sort of > psyche, rather a misbid. > > One would furthermore expect that psychic 2NT likely to be based > on some subset of "0-16 HCP, any six card suit". > > Given that the Hills-Ali partnership has agreed on never opening 2NT, > and assuming that a weak 2NT opening showing something like > "any three level preempt" would be prohibited at the contest (like via a "no known > four card suit" rule), can Richard then legally make such a 2NT psyche? > Well, I would rule that this 2NT actually shows "0-16, 13 cards". If that system is illegal, so is this psyche. Note that this is the same reasoning as the one that some people use in banning the H1H. They consider that my 1H shows "either a natural 1H or 0-3", and they consider that system to be illegal. I maintain that although that description is correct, no system regulation should be allowed to ban that opening, since that would be banning all psyches. After all, whenever someone makes a psyche, there is always some reason or other to be calling it part of his system. > > Thomas -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Mon Feb 7 14:26:01 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:26:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> References: <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1407491605.14515.1297085161016.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > I think that in this example (nonvul vs. vul, and a clearly non-systemic bid) > > it should pretty obvious to everybody at the table that 2NT likely is some sort of > > psyche, rather a misbid. > > > > One would furthermore expect that psychic 2NT likely to be based > > on some subset of "0-16 HCP, any six card suit". > > > > Given that the Hills-Ali partnership has agreed on never opening 2NT, > > and assuming that a weak 2NT opening showing something like > > "any three level preempt" would be prohibited at the contest (like via a "no known > > four card suit" rule), can Richard then legally make such a 2NT psyche? > > > > Well, I would rule that this 2NT actually shows "0-16, 13 cards". > If that system is illegal, so is this psyche. > > Note that this is the same reasoning as the one that some people use in > banning the H1H. They consider that my 1H shows "either a natural 1H or > 0-3", and they consider that system to be illegal. I maintain that > although that description is correct, no system regulation should be > allowed to ban that opening, since that would be banning all psyches. > After all, whenever someone makes a psyche, there is always some reason > or other to be calling it part of his system. The H1H is different in so far as there actually exists an existing, agreed, legal meaning for the 1H opener. It is just that the hand of the psyche does not match that meaning. In the Ali-Hills system, there is no existing, agreed meaning for the 2NT opener, from which the psyche then grossly deviates. I agree with Alan that the term "psyche" is not exactly appropriate. However, TFLB does not seem to cover "intentionally making some non-systemic wild bid to create chaos" elsewhere. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 7 14:26:35 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 14:26:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> References: <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002001cbc6ca$a60fae10$f22f0a30$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ..................... > Well, I would rule that this 2NT actually shows "0-16, 13 cards". > If that system is illegal, so is this psyche. Such an agreement will (at the least) be BS (weak hand without any known anchor suit). > > Note that this is the same reasoning as the one that some people use in banning > the H1H. They consider that my 1H shows "either a natural 1H or 0-3", and they > consider that system to be illegal. I maintain that although that description is > correct, no system regulation should be allowed to ban that opening, since that > would be banning all psyches. That agreement makes the system HUM (An opening bid at the one level can be weaker than a pass in the same position) > After all, whenever someone makes a psyche, there is always some reason or > other to be calling it part of his system. No call actually made can be a psyche unless there is a specified understanding from which the call represents a gross deviation. Thus a call that has no meaning can never be psyched. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 7 14:42:09 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 14:42:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1407491605.14515.1297085161016.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1407491605.14515.1297085161016.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D4FF6B1.2060709@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/02/2011 14:26, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Herman De Wael >> Thomas Dehn wrote: >>> I think that in this example (nonvul vs. vul, and a clearly non-systemic bid) >>> it should pretty obvious to everybody at the table that 2NT likely is some sort of >>> psyche, rather a misbid. >>> >>> One would furthermore expect that psychic 2NT likely to be based >>> on some subset of "0-16 HCP, any six card suit". >>> >>> Given that the Hills-Ali partnership has agreed on never opening 2NT, >>> and assuming that a weak 2NT opening showing something like >>> "any three level preempt" would be prohibited at the contest (like via a "no known >>> four card suit" rule), can Richard then legally make such a 2NT psyche? >>> >> Well, I would rule that this 2NT actually shows "0-16, 13 cards". >> If that system is illegal, so is this psyche. >> >> Note that this is the same reasoning as the one that some people use in >> banning the H1H. They consider that my 1H shows "either a natural 1H or >> 0-3", and they consider that system to be illegal. I maintain that >> although that description is correct, no system regulation should be >> allowed to ban that opening, since that would be banning all psyches. >> After all, whenever someone makes a psyche, there is always some reason >> or other to be calling it part of his system. > The H1H is different in so far as there actually exists an existing, agreed, legal meaning > for the 1H opener. It is just that the hand of the psyche does > not match that meaning. > > In the Ali-Hills system, there is no existing, agreed meaning for the 2NT opener, > from which the psyche then grossly deviates. > > I agree with Alan that the term "psyche" is not exactly appropriate. > However, TFLB does not seem to cover "intentionally making some non-systemic wild bid > to create chaos" elsewhere. > Under 74A2, perhaps ? Apart from this, one should define what a non-systemic bid is. a) a bid that will never be made in the system ? Them there is MI on their SC (they make it, don't they ? The fact that they were not conscious of the fact doesn't change the fact that the bid does exist) b) a bid that has no meaning in the system ? Then it might be disallowed. However, one should be careful with htis. Remember my post about the sequence 1NT-2C-3NT, non-systemic, when the opener realized he had overlooked an Ace and didn't want partner to pass the systemic 2H rebid ? How can one dare disallowing this ? So, however awkward the above formula could be, perhaps it should be used, at least in CoC. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Feb 7 15:31:14 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:31:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams tournament in different classes Message-ID: <1PmS7W-0VrkOm0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> I'd like to have your opinions here. The plan is to run a teams tournament over 3 days with several stages. Together 16 rounds. Stage 1: 4 rounds in small groups - Round Robin After that the groupwinners form class A, the group- runnerups form class B and the rest form class C. Stage 2-4: 3 rounds (each) Swiss in classes After that promotion / relegation between A/B and B/C Stage 5: 3 more rounds Swiss in classes All VPs are carried forward the whole tournament and it does not matter in which stage and in which class they are won. Last year there were discussion because some teams won a lot of VPs in their 3 rounds in C and - after promoting - they were ranked on top of class B ... The same sort of thing happened to a team relegated from class A and found itself at the bottom of class B ... Now the discussion arises whether it would be a good idea to award each team per match additional (bonus) points for playing in class A (4 VPs) or B (2 VPs). The aim is to give a "compensation" to those teams that have better opponents . What do you think? Is this a good idea? Is it fair? From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Mon Feb 7 15:40:12 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:40:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams tournament in different classes In-Reply-To: <1PmS7W-0VrkOm0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <1PmS7W-0VrkOm0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D50044C.9020009@gmail.com> W dniu 2011-02-07 15:31, Peter Eidt pisze: > All VPs are carried forward the whole tournament and > it does not matter in which stage and in which class > they are won. > > What do you think? Is this a good idea? Is it fair? I think it is not - the teams that have "promoted' should have some new artifical number of VPs, such as the number of VPs any team from 8th, 10th, 12th place (of 16 if 4 were relegated), eg. ?K From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 7 15:52:32 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 09:52:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <185F96B4-8A3D-4FFC-A89E-F6DE7AC25350@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > The quotes are from "Declarer cannot have penalty cards" > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: 4. februar 2011 20:13 >>> >>> [Jerry] I would deduce that no >>> artificial call is ever a bid if I really thought that the >>> definitions >>> section contained nothing but definitions. >> >> "An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a >> denomination" is perfect as a bridge language syntax definition, >> but "An >> undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks >> (tricks in >> excess of six) in a specified denomination." is probably a better >> definition >> of what a bid is. The precise syntax for bids are then specified >> in the >> relevant laws. That the bid 4NT is usually meant as asking for the >> number of >> aces held rather than an undertaking to take ten tricks with no trump >> doesn't change the fact that this is precisely the literal meaning >> of that >> clause. > > I don't see it exactly this way. I will illustrate briefly what I > said above. We currently have this: > > [Definition] Artificial call: A bid, double or redouble that conveys > information (not being information taken for granted > by players generally) other than willingness to play in > the denomination named or last named, or a pass which > promises more than a specified amount of strength or > promises or denies values other than in the last suit > named. > > [Definition] Bid: An undertaking to win at least a specified number > of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. > > Now, let us see what a LOL's Blackwood 4NT is by these definitions. > Since it is not a willingness to play in no trump, it is an artificial > call by these definitions. But it is not a bid either, because it is > not an undertaking to win at least 10 tricks in a no trump contract. Of course it is. Because if nobody outbids you, you have undertaken to win at least 10 tricks in a notrump contract. The fact that you have every reason to believe, when you bid 4NT, that someone, namely your partner, will outbid you, because you have made a (non-binding) agreement to that effect, doesn't change this. > Since this nonsensical conclusion came from following the Definitions, > my conclusion is that TFLB's definition of _artificial call_ is pretty > good, but its definition of _bid_ is not. With me so far? > > How about the definition that Sven rejected? I.e.--- > > [Suggested definition] Bid: An auction statement specifying a number > from one to seven and a denomination. > > Well, 4NT certainly fits the suggested definition, regardless of what > was intended when 4NT was bid. This seems a better definition. I > prefer a definition of _bid_ that does not need to know the purpose of > the bid: It is common sense that we should not have to know the > purpose of the bid before we know whether or not it was a bid. It > also seems a lot better because the word bid appears in the definition > of _artificial call_. Obviously, _bid_ is a simpler concept that > _artificial call_. > > TFLB's definition of bid is even worse than I have hinted so far, for > it seems to preclude the possibility of a sacrifice bid. And it worse > than that too, for it seems to emphasize the intention of the bidder > and therefore sounds to me like a needless attempt at mind reading. > What is this "undertaking"? A bid is a number and a denomination. > Period. > > Is it really that simple? Trying to anticipate a counter argument, > let me cite one more Definition from TFLB: > > [Definition] Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass. > > I am half afraid that someone will write this: "We must mention > intention in our definition of Bid, for otherwise, how would we know > the difference between a bid of 1C and an explanation of the auction > that includes the phrase `1C'?" > > My answer would be that that kind of precision is what the laws are > for, and besides, you were not at all careful about your definition of > call, for the word "double" might also come up while describing the > meaning of the past auction with being part of the current auction. I > tried to address this issue with the phrase "An auction statement ..." > in my suggested Definition of Bid. Did I succeed? > > It makes sense to me to make the Definition of Bid just as simple and > straightforward as the Definition of Call. At its most fundamental level, a bridge auction is an auction. A bid, in any kind of auction, is an offering to complete a contract, which becomes established if no higher bid is made. In a bridge auction, the contract is to win at least the specified number of odd tricks in the specified denomination. This is part of the definition of the game of bridge itself, and needs to be explicitly stated in the lawbook. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Feb 7 16:27:21 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 23:27:21 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net><4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> <002001cbc6ca$a60fae10$f22f0a30$@no> Message-ID: <822F49FA806F4723AC048A1F78105146@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ..................... Big snip > > No call actually made can be a psyche unless there is a specified > understanding from which the call represents a gross deviation. Thus a > call > that has no meaning can never be psyched. Relevant? portions of the 2008 ABF Systems Regs 2.5 Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments Certain types of conventional calls or treatments are considered to place demands upon the opponents' defensive preparations. The conventions/ treatments in question are categorized as 'Brown Sticker' (BS). Any one of the following characteristics qualifies a convention/ treatment as BS if it is a matter of partnership agreement: a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: could be weak and does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. Snip 2.6 Random Actions It is forbidden to open or to overcall hands, which by agreement, may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further definition is provided (i.e., bids that promise nothing more than 13 cards in a player's hand). Is there an agreement (by omission) that a 2NT opening may be made on less than 8 HCP? bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 7 16:28:49 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:28:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Bid In-Reply-To: <185F96B4-8A3D-4FFC-A89E-F6DE7AC25350@starpower.net> References: <185F96B4-8A3D-4FFC-A89E-F6DE7AC25350@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:52:32 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> The quotes are from "Declarer cannot have penalty cards" >> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: 4. februar 2011 20:13 >>>> >>>> [Jerry] I would deduce that no >>>> artificial call is ever a bid if I really thought that the >>>> definitions >>>> section contained nothing but definitions. >>> >>> "An auction statement specifying a number from one to seven and a >>> denomination" is perfect as a bridge language syntax definition, >>> but "An >>> undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks >>> (tricks in >>> excess of six) in a specified denomination." is probably a better >>> definition >>> of what a bid is. The precise syntax for bids are then specified >>> in the >>> relevant laws. That the bid 4NT is usually meant as asking for the >>> number of >>> aces held rather than an undertaking to take ten tricks with no trump >>> doesn't change the fact that this is precisely the literal meaning >>> of that >>> clause. >> >> I don't see it exactly this way. I will illustrate briefly what I >> said above. We currently have this: >> >> [Definition] Artificial call: A bid, double or redouble that conveys >> information (not being information taken for granted >> by players generally) other than willingness to play in >> the denomination named or last named, or a pass which >> promises more than a specified amount of strength or >> promises or denies values other than in the last suit >> named. >> >> [Definition] Bid: An undertaking to win at least a specified number >> of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. >> >> Now, let us see what a LOL's Blackwood 4NT is by these definitions. >> Since it is not a willingness to play in no trump, it is an artificial >> call by these definitions. But it is not a bid either, because it is >> not an undertaking to win at least 10 tricks in a no trump contract. > > Of course it is. Because if nobody outbids you, you have undertaken > to win at least 10 tricks in a notrump contract. The fact that you > have every reason to believe, when you bid 4NT, that someone, namely > your partner, will outbid you, because you have made a (non-binding) > agreement to that effect, doesn't change this. > >> Since this nonsensical conclusion came from following the Definitions, >> my conclusion is that TFLB's definition of _artificial call_ is pretty >> good, but its definition of _bid_ is not. With me so far? >> >> How about the definition that Sven rejected? I.e.--- >> >> [Suggested definition] Bid: An auction statement specifying a number >> from one to seven and a denomination. >> >> Well, 4NT certainly fits the suggested definition, regardless of what >> was intended when 4NT was bid. This seems a better definition. I >> prefer a definition of _bid_ that does not need to know the purpose of >> the bid: It is common sense that we should not have to know the >> purpose of the bid before we know whether or not it was a bid. It >> also seems a lot better because the word bid appears in the definition >> of _artificial call_. Obviously, _bid_ is a simpler concept that >> _artificial call_. >> >> TFLB's definition of bid is even worse than I have hinted so far, for >> it seems to preclude the possibility of a sacrifice bid. And it worse >> than that too, for it seems to emphasize the intention of the bidder >> and therefore sounds to me like a needless attempt at mind reading. >> What is this "undertaking"? A bid is a number and a denomination. >> Period. >> >> Is it really that simple? Trying to anticipate a counter argument, >> let me cite one more Definition from TFLB: >> >> [Definition] Call: Any bid, double, redouble or pass. >> >> I am half afraid that someone will write this: "We must mention >> intention in our definition of Bid, for otherwise, how would we know >> the difference between a bid of 1C and an explanation of the auction >> that includes the phrase `1C'?" >> >> My answer would be that that kind of precision is what the laws are >> for, and besides, you were not at all careful about your definition of >> call, for the word "double" might also come up while describing the >> meaning of the past auction with being part of the current auction. I >> tried to address this issue with the phrase "An auction statement ..." >> in my suggested Definition of Bid. Did I succeed? >> >> It makes sense to me to make the Definition of Bid just as simple and >> straightforward as the Definition of Call. > > At its most fundamental level, a bridge auction is an auction. A > bid, in any kind of auction, is an offering to complete a contract, > which becomes established if no higher bid is made. Maybe "offering" is a better word than "undertaking". And I think you improve on the definition when you add "if no higher bid is made". If you think of the partnership as a unit, there is no offering or undertaking by that unit until the partnership allows the auction to be passed out. > In a bridge > auction, the contract is to win at least the specified number of odd > tricks in the specified denomination. This is part of the definition > of the game of bridge itself, and needs to be explicitly stated in > the lawbook. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 7 16:30:56 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 10:30:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason In-Reply-To: <4D4FF6B1.2060709@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1407491605.14515.1297085161016.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4D4FF6B1.2060709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 7/02/2011 14:26, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >> The H1H is different in so far as there actually exists an >> existing, agreed, legal meaning >> for the 1H opener. It is just that the hand of the psyche does >> not match that meaning. >> >> In the Ali-Hills system, there is no existing, agreed meaning for >> the 2NT opener, >> from which the psyche then grossly deviates. >> >> I agree with Alan that the term "psyche" is not exactly appropriate. >> However, TFLB does not seem to cover "intentionally making some >> non-systemic wild bid >> to create chaos" elsewhere. > > Under 74A2, perhaps ? > > Apart from this, one should define what a non-systemic bid is. > > a) a bid that will never be made in the system ? Them there is MI on > their SC (they make it, don't they ? The fact that they were not > conscious of the fact doesn't change the fact that the bid does exist) > b) a bid that has no meaning in the system ? Then it might be > disallowed. However, one should be careful with htis. Remember my post > about the sequence 1NT-2C-3NT, non-systemic, when the opener > realized he > had overlooked an Ace and didn't want partner to pass the systemic 2H > rebid ? How can one dare disallowing this ? > > So, however awkward the above formula could be, perhaps it should be > used, at least in CoC. There is a significant difference between a bid for which (b1) the partnership has no agreement defining it as having a particular meaning, and (b2) the partnership has an agreement defining it as having no particular meaning. Consider, for example, that b2 may be prohibited by regulation, but b1 may not. OTOH, there is no significant difference between a bid which, by agreement, has no defined meaning, and one which, by agreement, "cannot" be made at all (at minimum, surely the case if the bid is in fact made). I'm not at all sure whether this has any practical relevance to the current discussion, but it might. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Feb 7 17:00:02 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 00:00:02 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4D7EF114-B931-4E4D-AB84-A51D84138B17@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Not in the western third of Australia The ABF have with their 2010 bidding box regulations aligned themselves with those of the Bridge Association of Western Australia (BAWA). This has allowed BAWA to adopt the ABF bidding box regulations cheers bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Rainsford To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] There are several Australian contributors at IBLF, though perhaps they are not "gurus". One of them tells us that the Australian bidding box regulations, at http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFwbbb10.pdf, make a distinction between a call selected and a call made, and that this is interpreted so that once a call has been made a player is denied his L25A1 right to correct an unintended call. Have you encountered such a thing, Richard? Gordon Rainsford On 1 Feb 2011, at 01:09, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: Yes, it is risky for a newbie Director to seek advice from merely one guru wielding a Big Black Rod, as that newbie Director is unaware of the singular guru's blind spots.(1) But with several gurus, such blind spots are cancelled out. For example, the English guru David Stevenson is one of the many gurus (including the American guru, Ed Reppert) who contribute to general discussion online at the ABDA website. http://www.abda.org.au/forum/index.php#1 David S had a parochial blind spot, assuming that the English definition of "logical alternative" was necessarily identical to the Aussie definition. A newbie Director visiting IBLF would not have become aware of the error, as IBLF lacks any Aussie guru to correct David S. But on the ABDA website the error was indeed quickly corrected by an Aussie guru. The Australian Bridge Directors Association online fora are partially accessible to non-subscribers who wish to visit; plus there are also resources at: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/resources.html Best wishes Richard Hills ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20110207/9652668d/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 7 18:15:47 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:15:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams tournament in different classes In-Reply-To: <1PmS7W-0VrkOm0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <1PmS7W-0VrkOm0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D5028C3.3060509@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/02/2011 15:31, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > I'd like to have your opinions here. > > The plan is to run a teams tournament over 3 days with > several stages. Together 16 rounds. > > Stage 1: 4 rounds in small groups - Round Robin > After that the groupwinners form class A, the group- > runnerups form class B and the rest form class C. > > Stage 2-4: 3 rounds (each) Swiss in classes > After that promotion / relegation between A/B and B/C > > Stage 5: 3 more rounds Swiss in classes > > All VPs are carried forward the whole tournament and > it does not matter in which stage and in which class > they are won. > > Last year there were discussion because some teams > won a lot of VPs in their 3 rounds in C and - after > promoting - they were ranked on top of class B ... > The same sort of thing happened to a team relegated > from class A and found itself at the bottom of class B ... > > Now the discussion arises whether it would be a > good idea to award each team per match additional > (bonus) points for playing in class A (4 VPs) or B (2 VPs). > AG : a very similar system was used in Deauville up to 2007 or the like. It was considered occasionally unfair for the reasons you mention ; often a team qualifying from flight C won flight B due to its good carryover. There are two solutions to this (apart from creating a standard Swis, of course, which they did in Deauville) : - promote / demote teams as often as possible (but every third round is already rather frequent) ; - add / substract to the scores, as you suggest, but that, too, could be unfair to a team which has been demoted due to bad luck (or so they say ;-) and thereafter won their flight B or C convincingly. All in all, I prefer keeping the slightly biased system, which isn'(t perhaps biased any more than standard Swiss, where you could benefit from your bad initial performance, or even from a TD's decision, overturned by the AC after the pairings for the next round were done. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 7 18:22:10 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:22:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Bid In-Reply-To: <185F96B4-8A3D-4FFC-A89E-F6DE7AC25350@starpower.net> References: <185F96B4-8A3D-4FFC-A89E-F6DE7AC25350@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D502A42.1060407@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/02/2011 15:52, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > At its most fundamental level, a bridge auction is an auction. A > bid, in any kind of auction, is an offering to complete a contract, > which becomes established if no higher bid is made. AG : we understand your logic, but most players won't agree with this, as they neven intended to play said contract. One more case of the definition being disconnected from everyday feelings, which isn't right. Notice that reasoning on what will happen if partner passes is of no effect ("ex falso quodlibet") given that he will not. I mean, you may as well state that if partner passes, you'll jump to the moon waiving a blue flag and singing "Walzing Matilda" ; this cannot be falsified. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 7 18:26:08 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:26:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason In-Reply-To: References: <4D4FEBED.5060502@skynet.be> <1537542361.8029.1297066332130.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <1407491605.14515.1297085161016.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> <4D4FF6B1.2060709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D502B30.1040705@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/02/2011 16:30, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 7, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 7/02/2011 14:26, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >>> The H1H is different in so far as there actually exists an >>> existing, agreed, legal meaning >>> for the 1H opener. It is just that the hand of the psyche does >>> not match that meaning. >>> >>> In the Ali-Hills system, there is no existing, agreed meaning for >>> the 2NT opener, >>> from which the psyche then grossly deviates. >>> >>> I agree with Alan that the term "psyche" is not exactly appropriate. >>> However, TFLB does not seem to cover "intentionally making some >>> non-systemic wild bid >>> to create chaos" elsewhere. >> Under 74A2, perhaps ? >> >> Apart from this, one should define what a non-systemic bid is. >> >> a) a bid that will never be made in the system ? Them there is MI on >> their SC (they make it, don't they ? The fact that they were not >> conscious of the fact doesn't change the fact that the bid does exist) >> b) a bid that has no meaning in the system ? Then it might be >> disallowed. However, one should be careful with htis. Remember my post >> about the sequence 1NT-2C-3NT, non-systemic, when the opener >> realized he >> had overlooked an Ace and didn't want partner to pass the systemic 2H >> rebid ? How can one dare disallowing this ? >> >> So, however awkward the above formula could be, perhaps it should be >> used, at least in CoC. > There is a significant difference between a bid for which (b1) the > partnership has no agreement defining it as having a particular > meaning, and (b2) the partnership has an agreement defining it as > having no particular meaning. Consider, for example, that b2 may be > prohibited by regulation, but b1 may not. AG : let's be more precise.. Only making such a bid may be disallowed. If you want to decide that you never open at the two-level, and stick to it, because you consider it to help you win (which, remember, you should aim at), they can't disallow it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 7 23:11:51 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:11:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0E157C034321464984F5D232901C02AA@Mildred> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>David S had a parochial blind spot, assuming that the English >>definition of "logical alternative" was necessarily identical >>to the Aussie definition. A newbie Director visiting IBLF >>would not have become aware of the error, as IBLF lacks any >>Aussie guru to correct David S. But on the ABDA website the >>error was indeed quickly corrected by an Aussie guru. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ This intrigues me. Since 'logical alternative' is a term of >the art, defined in Law 16B1(b), does this mean that the law >definition is construed differently in these two antipodean >locations (without anywhere producing a conflict with law)? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 80B2(f): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Richard Hills: The ABF announced a supplementary regulation on the Aussie interpretation of the Law 16B1(b) definition of logical alternative. In ABF-land "significant proportion" = "more than 25%" (which is not in conflict with the dictionary definition of "significant proportion", hence Law 80B2(f) legal), so consequentially in ABF-land there are at most three logical alternatives at any one time. Gordon Rainsford: >There are several Australian contributors at IBLF, though >perhaps they are not "gurus". Richard Hills: The only blmler who is an Aussie guru is National Director (and Editor of the ABDA Bulletin) Laurie Kelso. Laurie sometimes delurks when I make an egregious misstatement about ABF policies or practices. Gordon Rainsford: >One of them tells us that the Australian bidding box >regulations, at >http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFwbbb10.pdf, >make a distinction between a call selected and a call made, >and that this is interpreted so that once a call has been made >a player is denied his L25A1 right to correct an unintended >call. Richard Hills: The IBLF Aussie non-guru has misinterpreted clauses 3.5 and 3.6 of the ABF Bidding Box regulation. ABF Bidding Box regulation, clause 3.5: "A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made." ABF Bidding Box regulation, clause 3.6: "A call selected may be changed without penalty if it is determined by the Director that * It is a call selected unintentionally or * It has not passed the screen and the Director consents to the change." Richard Hills: Clause 3.5 does NOT say "A call is considered Intentionally made...", so a player's Law 25A1 right remains unabridged. Gordon Rainsford >Have you encountered such a thing, Richard? Richard Hills: Yes and no. And now for something incompletely different. 2010 South West Pacific Teams, Match 4, Board 13 The anti-clockwise auction has proceeded -> RHO Pard LHO Me 3H 2S (1) Pass ? (1) Weak jump undercall I held: K8762 7 AK AJ543 If pard held perfect cards for his weak jump undercall, then 6S would make. However, one of the Rules that Bob Hamman imposes upon his partner is: "Never play Bob for perfect cards, since he never holds them". So I dragged the 4S card out of my bidding box, and it was halfway to the table (visible to RHO* but not yet visible to pard), when suddenly... ...I realised that the clockwise auction had actually proceeded -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Hashmat Hills Ali --- 1C (1) Pass 2S (2) 3H ? (1) 15+ hcp, any shape (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls (A = 2, K = 1, but singleton kings not counted), at least 5/5 in the minors So I put my 4S card back into my bidding box, and announced that 2S should have been alerted. At this stage East-West called for a Director, to rule upon the status of the fool's hovering 4S bidding box card. This provided some entertainment for the entire Directing staff as they parsed the relevant part of the Bidding Box Regulation. Clause 3.5 "A call is considered made (without screens) when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." ["...held touching..." has since been amended to "...held face up, touching..." so that the ABF Bidding Box regulation would become fully analogous to Law 45C2] So the Directors' rule for the fool was that I could retract my 4S bidding card without any further rectification (although my foolish antics were unauthorised information for partner). The auction concluded -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Richard Hashmat Hills Ali --- 1C Pass 2S 3H 4NT(3) Pass 5D (4) Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass (3) Old-fashioned Blackwood (4) One ace The complete deal was -> K8762 7 AK AJ543 QJ5 A943 KQJT653 942 7 Q6543 QT 9 T A8 JT982 K8762 +1370 and 13 imps to the good guys. Rueful Rabbit redux! Best wishes Richard Hills * RHO saw my initial intended call because I am left-handed and was using a left-handed bidding box. Unluckily RHO was the opposing team captain, was thereby inspired to appeal the Directors' ruling and therefore earned his team a fine for an appeal without merit. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 7 23:22:20 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:22:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <822F49FA806F4723AC048A1F78105146@acer> Message-ID: Bill Kemp: >.....Is there an agreement (by omission)?..... Richard Hills: Allegedly true story from the ACBL in the 1960s WEST EAST 1NT(1) 2NT(2) 7NT(3) (1) Agreement by commission, old fashioned 16-18 hcp (2) Agreement by commission, old fashioned game invite (3) Is there an agreement (by omission) about 7NT??? :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 8 00:13:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:13:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4FF6B1.2060709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Introduction: "Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural" Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >a bid that will never be made in the system ? Them there is MI on >their SC (they make it, don't they ? >..... Law 40A3: "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." Richard Hills: For Law 40A3 the singular does NOT include the plural, because the context clearly dictates otherwise. Therefore Alain fell into my favourite logical error of petitio principii by using the word "they" for a _single_ player's legal Law 40A3 deviation from the partnership's _mutually_ agreed System Card. WEST EAST 1NT(1) 2NT(2) 7NT(3) (1) old fashioned 16-18 hcp (2) old fashioned game invite (3) non-systemic, does NOT become systemically MI merely because West chose the call What happened at the table, of course, was that West forgot that she had opened the bidding and therefore believed that East's "opening" bid was an old fashioned 22-24 hcp. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 8 00:31:14 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 00:31:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D4FF6B1.2060709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01cbc71f$1d542b00$57fc8100$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > WEST EAST > 1NT(1) 2NT(2) > 7NT(3) > > (1) old fashioned 16-18 hcp > (2) old fashioned game invite > (3) non-systemic, does NOT become systemically MI merely > because West chose the call > > What happened at the table, of course, was that West forgot that she had opened > the bidding and therefore believed that East's "opening" bid was an old fashioned > 22-24 hcp. :-) :-) Whatever the 7NT bid was it cannot qualify as, nor enjoy the privilege of a psyche for the simple reason that it was not "a DELIBERATE and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length." The obviously correct explanation for this bid seems to be that it is to play (according to an implicit understanding). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 8 00:57:04 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:57:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D4FC278.4090309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >Would you classify 1NT-2H-5D (in a classical system) as a psyche? Richard Hills: The beauty of the 2007 Law 40 vis-a-vis the 1997 Law 40 is that one no longer has to debate on blml misconceptions about "What is a psyche?" Sven Pran: >Whatever the 7NT bid was it cannot qualify as, nor enjoy the >privilege of a psyche for the simple reason that it was not "a >DELIBERATE and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of >suit length." Richard Hills: No such thing as "the privilege of a psyche" any more in the 2007 Lawbook. The only reason that a Definition of a psyche was retained was to permit an RA to restrict or ban artificial psyches under Law 40B2(d). Instead one asks, Is this call a legal deviation under Law 40A3, or is this call an implicit partnership understanding (part of the partnership's methods) under Law 40C1? Ergo WEST EAST 1NT 2H = transfer to spades 5D is a legal deviation under Law 40A3 (although that I might guess that West, with zero hearts and eight diamonds, initially believed that the suits were divided four hearts and four diamonds). What's the problem? The problem is that an idiosyncratic blmler and Director is very inconsistent on the boundary between Law 40A3 and Law 40C1. He argues that the Hills one-off 2NT deviation is MI*, but that the De Wael multiple 1H deviations are not at all MI. Best wishes Richard Hills * Including egregiously invoking the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy to provide an ex post facto definition of the 2NT alleged MI. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From diggadog at iinet.net.au Tue Feb 8 02:10:47 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:10:47 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Snip > Law 80B2(f): > > "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: > to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict > with, these Laws." > > Richard Hills: > > The ABF announced a supplementary regulation on the Aussie > interpretation of the Law 16B1(b) definition of logical > alternative. In ABF-land "significant proportion" = "more than > 25%" (which is not in conflict with the dictionary definition of > "significant proportion", hence Law 80B2(f) legal), so > consequentially in ABF-land there are at most three logical > alternatives at any one time. Since each player may seriously consider more than l alternative there may be more than 3 logical alternatives although this is uncommon in my experience > Large snip cheers bill > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > * RHO saw my initial intended call because I am left-handed > and was using a left-handed bidding box. Unluckily RHO was > the opposing team captain, was thereby inspired to appeal the > Directors' ruling and therefore earned his team a fine for an > appeal without merit. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 8 02:26:40 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 01:26:40 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:11 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> The ABF announced a supplementary regulation on the Aussie >> interpretation of the Law 16B1(b) definition of logical >> alternative. In ABF-land "significant proportion" = "more than >> 25%" (which is not in conflict with the dictionary definition of >> "significant proportion", hence Law 80B2(f) legal), so >> consequentially in ABF-land there are at most three logical >> alternatives at any one time. > +=+ So does this set a limit on the number of "potential results" in Law 12C1(c) ? +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 8 03:31:02 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:31:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Usher of the Big Black Rod [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>The ABF announced a supplementary regulation on the Aussie >>interpretation of the Law 16B1(b) definition of logical >>alternative. In ABF-land "significant proportion" = "more than >>25%" (which is not in conflict with the dictionary definition of >>"significant proportion", hence Law 80B2(f) legal), so >>consequentially in ABF-land there are at most three logical >>alternatives at any one time. >+=+ So does this set a limit on the number of "potential results" >in Law 12C1(c) ? +=+ No. The Law 12C1(c) phrase "a number of results" need not and has not been interpreted by the ABF identically to the Law 16B1(b) phrase "significant proportion". But the ABF has provided a non-binding guideline on Law 12C1(d): "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." with the ABF recommending that "numerous" be often assumed to mean "more than four". Best wishes Richard Hills Zone 7 Law Interpretation, Regulation and Guidance (Effective 1st June 2008) http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/Zone7Laws080508.pdf The 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge provide for the Regulating Authority (c.f. the ABF/NZ Bridge) to select certain Law options and to regulate their usage within its geographical region. Regulating Authorities are further permitted to provide regional interpretation and guidance as to the application of such options and regulations. The following interpretations have been made by the ABF/NZ Bridge: Law 12C1(c) Directors are permitted to award a single weighted score that endeavours to restore the balance of equity on the hand in the instant prior to the infraction. The calculation of the weightings relates to the expected outcomes from that point forward in an auction unaffected by any irregularity. Any residual doubt that exists in the assessment of the relative weightings should be resolved in favour of the non-offending side. Example: As a result of misinformation a pair defends 4HX. If they had been correctly informed they will certainly bid game in spades and possibly slam, making eleven or twelve tricks depending on declarer's line of play. The Director may conclude that equity is best served by substituting a single weighted score as follows: 30% of +1430 (6S =) Plus 40% of +680 (4S +2) Plus 20% of +650 (4S +1) Plus 10% of -100 (6S -1) At Pairs: Assuming there are 12 Tables, the frequency table would look something like this: Frequency Score Matchpoints 2.3 +1430 20.7 5.4 +680 13.0 2.2 +650 5.4 2.1 -100 1.1 The weighted score would be: (0.3*20.7) + (0.4*13.0) + (0.2*5.4) +( 0.1*1.1) = +12.6 - rounded to 1 decimal place. A single score of N/S +12.6 would be entered. At Teams: Assume the score in the other room was N/S +650 Net Score IMPs Weight Adjust +1430 ? 650 = +780 +13 30% 3.9 + 680 ? 650 = +30 + 1 40% 0.4 + 650 ? 650 = 0 0 20% 0.0 - 100 ? 650 = -750 -13 10% -1.3 Total 3.0 The IMP total is rounded to the nearest whole number and the board scored as +3 to the non-offending side. Alternative Manual Calculation Method for Pairs Tournaments Scored by Computer Clearly to make one of these weighted adjustments for Matchpoint scoring without the aid of computer software would be tedious, if not impossible, particularly in large fields. Many software packages do not currently cater for this type of adjustment. Until a software modification is implemented the following procedure shall, by regulation, be deemed the correct one: Enter the scores into the software as normal, substituting average to both sides at the table to which the ruling applies. Then calculate the weighted score using the match-points assigned by the software (a board print out will provide this). In the above example the following results will be obtained: Score Matchpoints +1430 20 +680 13 +650 6 -100 2 The weighted score would be: (0.3*20) + (0.4*13) + (0.2*6) + (0.1*2) = +12.6. Finally correct the match-points for both sides, rounded to one decimal place, using the adjusted score (penalty) routine. Since the average on the board is 11 and has already been assigned, the director will add 1.6 match-points to N/S and deduct 1.6 match- points from E/W. Law 12C1(d) Although this is essentially a matter of judgement for the director (and subsequently the appeals committee), in general if more than four possible outcomes exist, then the director should consider applying this provision of the Laws and award an artificial adjusted score. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 04:12:40 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 21:12:40 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: <002701cbc642$74c9bb30$5e5d3190$@no> References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> <002701cbc642$74c9bb30$5e5d3190$@no> Message-ID: I hope Sven does not mind my agreements with him. On behalf Sven Pran: > On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman > .............. >> [Definitions] ?Defender: An opponent of (presumed) declarer. >> >> Why is the word _presumed_ here? ?I might suggest removing it. > > I agree, that would have been better Great. The parentheses hardly aid in clarity. In the definition, they look more like hedging than clarifying. > > "Presumed" declarer caters for the possibility that who is at some time > "presumed" declarer can very well eventually become a defender. > > So the laws should (possibly better than they do today) distinguish between > presumed declarer and declarer, presumed declaring side and declaring side, > and finally presumed defender(s) and defender(s). > > If you do not immediately grasp the importance then try to figure out how > and why it is important! > > Hint: Law 21B2 together with Law 22B1 > I get it. The director can reopen the auction due to revelations from the clarification period, which can change the defending side. Unfortunately, I have overlooked this before. Thanks so much for the tip, and please keep the education coming. I agree that _presumed declarer_ should be defined, as should _presumed dummy_. Both appear in law 41B. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 04:50:23 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 21:50:23 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Definition of Bid In-Reply-To: <185F96B4-8A3D-4FFC-A89E-F6DE7AC25350@starpower.net> References: <185F96B4-8A3D-4FFC-A89E-F6DE7AC25350@starpower.net> Message-ID: I endorse everything Alain has said on this subject, but I may have something to add. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >> [Definition] ?Bid: An undertaking to win at least a specified number >> of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. >> >> Now, let us see what a LOL's Blackwood 4NT is by these definitions. >> Since it is not a willingness to play in no trump, it is an artificial >> call by these definitions. But it is not a bid either, because it is >> not an undertaking to win at least 10 tricks in a no trump contract. > > Of course it is. ?Because if nobody outbids you, you have undertaken > to win at least 10 tricks in a notrump contract. ?The fact that you > have every reason to believe, when you bid 4NT, that someone, namely > your partner, will outbid you, because you have made a (non-binding) > agreement to that effect, doesn't change this. > >> >> [Jerry's suggested Definition] ?Bid: ?An auction statement specifying >> a number from one to seven and a denomination. >> > > At its most fundamental level, a bridge auction is an auction. No, not really. For example, in the simplest auction (understood generally), there is no concept of taking turns. The inexperienced reader looking in the Definitions section of TFLB is surely wanting nuts and bolts, not a flawed, esoteric analogy. Why confuse the technical meaning of bridge's _auction_ with the general definition of auction, where _call_ and _bid_ mean exactly the same thing? If someone is reading about Bid in the Definitions section of the TFLB, we should not waste his time pretending it is just like an auction understood generally. We should explain the nuts and bolts: A bid must have a number and a denomination. Please leave the philosophical comparisons to some other document, not the Definitions of TFLB. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 05:06:46 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 22:06:46 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores Message-ID: Apparently, my wish for knowledge overrides my wish to be thought a fool by as few people as possible. I guess Europe is among the areas that use weighted scores for adjustments. The ACBL does not. Am I right so far? I imagine that the ACBL does not use weighted scores because they feel that this kind of precision is, well, beyond human capabilities to do well. Again, am I right so far? Regardless, what I want to read is a good, great, or magnificent argument from a supporter of weighted scores to show the virtue of using weighted scores. Equally useful would be an example of what can go wrong if you do not use weighted scores. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 05:30:28 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 22:30:28 -0600 Subject: [BLML] In the ACBL, is a takeout double conventional? In-Reply-To: <20110201162955.4771EA8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110201162955.4771EA8C87D@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > A written defense is not required for Suction. ?However, pre-alerts > are required, and a written description of the method must be > available. ?See > http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf . ?I > don't know the answer to your question about whether pre-alerting is > required if a Mid-Chart convention is allowed in an event that is > otherwise a GCC event, but I think the answer is probably yes, based > on the wording in the above PDF file. > Agreed, it is almost surely yes: The ACBL allows using Mid Chart, but they state required conditions when it is used: [ACBL Mid Chart] When using a method permitted by the Mid-Chart but not by the General Convention Chart, a pair is required to: 1. Pre-Alert the method(s) 2. Have a written description of the method(s) available for the opponents. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 8 06:12:02 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:12:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Attributed to Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), English historian: "America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." Jerry Fusselman: >Apparently, my wish for knowledge overrides my wish to be >thought a fool by as few people as possible. I guess Europe >is among the areas that use weighted scores for adjustments. >The ACBL does not. Am I right so far? Richard Hills: Yes and no. At international events in which the contestants are from the ACBL, Europe, Australia, Siam, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera then weighted scores are also used. Jerry Fusselman: >I imagine that the ACBL does not use weighted scores because >they feel that this kind of precision is, well, beyond human >capabilities to do well. Again, am I right so far? Richard Hills: No. The 1975 Law 12 stated, "The number of points assigned to the non-offending side shall not exceed the number required to offset the irregularity. The number of points assigned to the offending side may be reduced by penalty points. Penalty points and indemnity points need not balance." But when designing the 1987 Law 12 the ACBL wanted to assign automatic windfalls to the non-offending side and automatic draconian penalties to the offending side (which because of the automatic nature meant that the punishment did not necessarily fit the crime). The ACBL was just a large friendly dog wagging its tail and knocking over a fundamental fundament's chair: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities ... " Jerry Fusselman: >Regardless, what I want to read is a good, great, or >magnificent argument from a supporter of weighted scores to >show the virtue of using weighted scores. Equally useful would >be an example of what can go wrong if you do not use weighted >scores. Richard Hills: Way back when the ACBL first tried Swiss teams events it used a simple win-loss victory point scale. This caused the problem of "breakage"; a win by one imp was vastly more important than a score of two imps fewer, but not at all different to a score of eighty imps more. Thus the ACBL now weights the results of its Swiss teams matches by using a longer victory point scale. Similarly, when calculating non-weighted scores a cold game which will be bid 51% of the time is much better than a cold game which will be bid 49% of the time, but not worse than a cold game which will be bid 99% of the time. What's the weighty problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 06:46:21 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 23:46:21 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores Message-ID: Sorry if I am slow. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:12 PM, richard.hills wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman: > >>Regardless, what I want to read is a good, great, or >>magnificent argument from a supporter of weighted scores to >>show the virtue of using weighted scores. ?Equally useful would >>be an example of what can go wrong if you do not use weighted >>scores. > > Richard Hills: > > Way back when the ACBL first tried Swiss teams events it used a > simple win-loss victory point scale. ?This caused the problem of > "breakage"; a win by one imp was vastly more important than a > score of two imps fewer, but not at all different to a score of > eighty imps more. > > Thus the ACBL now weights the results of its Swiss teams matches > by using a longer victory point scale. Sounds good! > > Similarly, when calculating non-weighted scores a cold game which > will be bid 51% of the time is much better than a cold game which > will be bid 49% of the time, but not worse than a cold game which > will be bid 99% of the time. > I am afraid I do not immediately comprehend this example. Is Richard trying to show what can go wrong if one does not use weighted scores? Can Richard or someone else offer the simple arithmetic of what goes wrong with the ACBL's approach in Richard's example? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 8 07:20:20 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:20:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Similarly, when calculating non-weighted scores a cold game which >>will be bid 51% of the time is much better than a cold game which >>will be bid 49% of the time, but not worse than a cold game which >>will be bid 99% of the time. >I am afraid I do not immediately comprehend this example. Is >Richard trying to show what can go wrong if one does not use >weighted scores? > >Can Richard or someone else offer the simple arithmetic of what >goes wrong with the ACBL's approach in Richard's example? 2007 Law 12C1(e)(ii) - used in ACBL-land, but not in ABF-land: "The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non- offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Actually the ACBL breakage is not a 51% versus a 49% chance of the non-offending side hypothetically bidding their cold game if the infraction had not occurred. Because the ACBL definition of "most favourable result that is likely" is "one chance in three" it is a breakage of a 34% chance versus a 33% chance, so the ACBL is wrong twice in its approach (once in permitting breakage, a second time in giving a potential windfall of up to 16% to the non-offending side). (a) If an ACBL Director deems that the non-offending side had a 34% chance of bidding their cold game, they get 100% of +620. (b) If an ACBL Director deems that the non-offending side had a 33% chance of bidding their cold game, they get 100% of +170. (c) If an ABF Director deems that the non-offending side had a 33% chance of bidding their cold game, they get 33% of +620 and 67% of +170. Best weights 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 8 08:24:43 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:24:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007c01cbc761$42021920$c6064b60$@nl> And this is of course not just about bidding. Suppose that due to a misexplanation NS miss a good vulnerable 3NT, which they otherwise would have bid. This 3NT makes if you guess some queen. Suppose the director sees no reason for NS to find the queen by logic he decides they would make this 3NT 50% of the time. So he awards 50% of 3NT making, 50% of 3NT one down. Or what I normally do in these circumstances is giving NS 60% of making and 40% of one down, just to err in the right direction. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: dinsdag 8 februari 2011 7:20 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Weighted scores [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >>Similarly, when calculating non-weighted scores a cold game which >>will be bid 51% of the time is much better than a cold game which >>will be bid 49% of the time, but not worse than a cold game which >>will be bid 99% of the time. >I am afraid I do not immediately comprehend this example. Is >Richard trying to show what can go wrong if one does not use >weighted scores? > >Can Richard or someone else offer the simple arithmetic of what >goes wrong with the ACBL's approach in Richard's example? 2007 Law 12C1(e)(ii) - used in ACBL-land, but not in ABF-land: "The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non- offending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred." Actually the ACBL breakage is not a 51% versus a 49% chance of the non-offending side hypothetically bidding their cold game if the infraction had not occurred. Because the ACBL definition of "most favourable result that is likely" is "one chance in three" it is a breakage of a 34% chance versus a 33% chance, so the ACBL is wrong twice in its approach (once in permitting breakage, a second time in giving a potential windfall of up to 16% to the non-offending side). (a) If an ACBL Director deems that the non-offending side had a 34% chance of bidding their cold game, they get 100% of +620. (b) If an ACBL Director deems that the non-offending side had a 33% chance of bidding their cold game, they get 100% of +170. (c) If an ABF Director deems that the non-offending side had a 33% chance of bidding their cold game, they get 33% of +620 and 67% of +170. Best weights 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 From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 8 08:39:16 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:39:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Declarer cannot have penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <20110203201640.793F1A8C882@mailhub.irvine.com> <001001cbc4a9$1003c230$300b4690$@no> <002701cbc642$74c9bb30$5e5d3190$@no> Message-ID: <000001cbc763$4a3750e0$dea5f2a0$@no> On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman ............. > I get it. The director can reopen the auction due to revelations from the > clarification period, which can change the defending side. > Unfortunately, I have overlooked this before. So had WBFLC in their first draft for 2007 Law 54E. I believe my "whistle" was the immediate cause for the final version. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 8 09:02:00 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:02:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D50F878.1030902@skynet.be> Imagine that a heart game depends on finding the club queen. At the other table, they don't find it, so the score is -100. At this table, the non-bidding side misexplain an overcall, and the bidding derails. The TD decides to award an AS based on 4H being bid. But will it be made? In the ACBL, the AS will be +620, and a full 12 IMPs to the NOS. In the EBL, the AS will be 60% of +620 and 40% of -100, or +7.2 IMPs. I don't see why the NOS should get such a windfall, and I believe -12 is too harsh a penalty for the OS. Herman. Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Apparently, my wish for knowledge overrides my wish to be thought a > fool by as few people as possible. I guess Europe is among the areas > that use weighted scores for adjustments. The ACBL does not. Am I > right so far? > > I imagine that the ACBL does not use weighted scores because they feel > that this kind of precision is, well, beyond human capabilities to do > well. Again, am I right so far? > > Regardless, what I want to read is a good, great, or magnificent > argument from a supporter of weighted scores to show the virtue of > using weighted scores. Equally useful would be an example of what can > go wrong if you do not use weighted scores. > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3428 - Release Date: 02/07/11 08:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 8 09:50:40 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 19:50:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores In-Reply-To: <4D50F878.1030902@skynet.be> References: <4D50F878.1030902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201102080851.p188oxqY024634@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 07:02 PM 8/02/2011, you wrote: >Imagine that a heart game depends on finding the club queen. At the >other table, they don't find it, so the score is -100. >At this table, the non-bidding side misexplain an overcall, and the >bidding derails. The TD decides to award an AS based on 4H being bid. >But will it be made? >In the ACBL, the AS will be +620, and a full 12 IMPs to the NOS. >In the EBL, the AS will be 60% of +620 and 40% of -100, or +7.2 IMPs. > >I don't see why the NOS should get such a windfall, and I believe -12 is >too harsh a penalty for the OS. > >Herman. I think all BLML agree with Herman. Is this a record? Cheers. Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 8 10:53:10 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:53:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Very good reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D511286.40801@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/02/2011 0:13, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Introduction: > > "Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the > singular includes the plural" > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> ..... >> a bid that will never be made in the system ? Them there is MI on >> their SC (they make it, don't they ? >> ..... > Law 40A3: > > "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement > provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed > partnership understanding (see Law 40C1)." > > Richard Hills: > > For Law 40A3 the singular does NOT include the plural, because > the context clearly dictates otherwise. Therefore Alain fell into > my favourite logical error of petitio principii by using the word > "they" for a _single_ player's legal Law 40A3 deviation from the > partnership's _mutually_ agreed System Card. AG : that's ridiculous ! You know perfectly well that I sometimes use the plural form to avoid gander issues. And you also need to document a little bit about what constitutes a petition of principle. Calling any judgement you deem wrong an error in logic is, you know what ? An error in logic .. Calling it your "favourite error" tells the truth : you'd like to see it everywhere.. From blml at arcor.de Tue Feb 8 11:22:23 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 11:22:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores In-Reply-To: <201102080851.p188oxqY024634@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201102080851.p188oxqY024634@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D50F878.1030902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1010633294.41549.1297160543402.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 07:02 PM 8/02/2011, you wrote: > >Imagine that a heart game depends on finding the club queen. At the > >other table, they don't find it, so the score is -100. > >At this table, the non-bidding side misexplain an overcall, and the > >bidding derails. The TD decides to award an AS based on 4H being bid. > >But will it be made? > >In the ACBL, the AS will be +620, and a full 12 IMPs to the NOS. > >In the EBL, the AS will be 60% of +620 and 40% of -100, or +7.2 IMPs. > > > >I don't see why the NOS should get such a windfall, and I believe -12 is > >too harsh a penalty for the OS. > > > >Herman. > > I think all BLML agree with Herman. Is this a record? It would be a rare incident, but maybe HdW will disagree with Herman. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 8 13:53:02 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores In-Reply-To: <1010633294.41549.1297160543402.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> References: <201102080851.p188oxqY024634@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D50F878.1030902@skynet.be> <1010633294.41549.1297160543402.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D513CAE.6030805@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >> I think all BLML agree with Herman. Is this a record? > > It would be a rare incident, but maybe HdW will disagree with Herman. > I can't stand unanimity. If need be, I'll disagree! :) No seriously, I never disagree just to disagree. Not even with Herman. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 8 14:22:27 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:22:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids Message-ID: <00f001cbc793$3b773860$b265a920$@nl> Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed to do so. Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer plays in next trick. Now it is detected that dummy played the wrong card. Reading literally I would say: 1) In the first of these two tricks both defenders can change their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that trick declarer can change. 2) Declarer cannot change his card in the second trick. Should he not have won the first trick he is now leading out of turn, but being declarer he can take it back. Could this LOOT be accepted? Who disagrees? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110208/6e7603f6/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 8 14:41:09 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:41:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids In-Reply-To: <00f001cbc793$3b773860$b265a920$@nl> References: <00f001cbc793$3b773860$b265a920$@nl> Message-ID: <00fb01cbc795$d7d29db0$8777d910$@nl> Reading 45D again the next question also pops up. According to that law an opponent may change his card. However if the card in dummy is changed to what declarer wanted it could be a different suit. In that case, to prevent revokes, I would guess an opponent has to change his card. Furthermore declarer, again to prevent revokes, might have to change his card even if his RHO does not. What am I missing here? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: dinsdag 8 februari 2011 14:22 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed to do so. Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer plays in next trick. Now it is detected that dummy played the wrong card. Reading literally I would say: 1) In the first of these two tricks both defenders can change their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that trick declarer can change. 2) Declarer cannot change his card in the second trick. Should he not have won the first trick he is now leading out of turn, but being declarer he can take it back. Could this LOOT be accepted? Who disagrees? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110208/c131afc2/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 8 15:35:03 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:35:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids In-Reply-To: <00fb01cbc795$d7d29db0$8777d910$@nl> References: <00f001cbc793$3b773860$b265a920$@nl> <00fb01cbc795$d7d29db0$8777d910$@nl> Message-ID: <000f01cbc79d$5fb85560$1f290020$@no> Law 45D is essentially unchanged since 1987 except for the added clause: "if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16D.)". It seems clear from the EBL commentary to the bridge laws of 1987 that Law 45D applies specifically when declarer has named a card and dummy played a different card than the one named. Although literally Law 45D appears to apply also if dummy "plays" a card when no card was named the applicable law in that case appears instead to be Law 45F. (Which seriously makes sense.) I believe what you are missing with some of your questions is Law 44C: "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." So assume declarer calls for a specific card from dummy and dummy plays a different card, attention to this irregularity is called before both sides have played to the next trick: Each defender may then withdraw any card they have played after the irregular play by dummy but before attention was called to it. (Notice that this may include a card led by a defender to the next trick.) Declarer may only change his play if either his RHO changes his play or in order to avoid a revoke. Declarer may not change the card he has led to the next trick unless it becomes a lead out of turn and this LOOT is not accepted. Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: 8. februar 2011 14:41 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids Reading 45D again the next question also pops up. According to that law an opponent may change his card. However if the card in dummy is changed to what declarer wanted it could be a different suit. In that case, to prevent revokes, I would guess an opponent has to change his card. Furthermore declarer, again to prevent revokes, might have to change his card even if his RHO does not. What am I missing here? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: dinsdag 8 februari 2011 14:22 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed to do so. Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer plays in next trick. Now it is detected that dummy played the wrong card. Reading literally I would say: 1) In the first of these two tricks both defenders can change their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that trick declarer can change. 2) Declarer cannot change his card in the second trick. Should he not have won the first trick he is now leading out of turn, but being declarer he can take it back. Could this LOOT be accepted? Who disagrees? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110208/760d9af7/attachment-0001.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 8 16:56:47 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:56:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45D_on_steroids?= In-Reply-To: <00fb01cbc795$d7d29db0$8777d910$@nl> References: <00fb01cbc795$d7d29db0$8777d910$@nl> Message-ID: <1Pmpvr-2BYYnw0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> IMHO your reading of the laws is appropriate. Defenders my change their cards in the first trick if they wish and they must change them, if they have to follow suit. Declarer may only change his card in the first trick, if he has to follow suit or if his RHO changes his card. Declarer may not change his lead to the 2nd trick, unless it is OOT and (in that case) not accepted by his LHO. From: "Hans van Staveren" > Reading 45D again the next question also pops up. > > According to that law an opponent may change his card. However if the > card in dummy is changed to what declarer wanted it could be a > different suit. In that case, to prevent revokes, I would guess an > opponent has to change his card. > > Furthermore declarer, again to prevent revokes, might have to change > his card even if his RHO does not. > > What am I missing here? > > Hans > > ON BEHALF OF Hans van Staveren > Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed to do so. > Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer plays in next trick. Now > it is detected that dummy played the wrong card. > > Reading literally I would say: > > 1) In the first of these two tricks both defenders can change > their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that trick declarer can > change. > > 2) Declarer cannot change his card in the second trick. Should > he not have won the first trick he is now leading out of turn, but > being declarer he can take it back. Could this LOOT be accepted? > > Who disagrees? > > Hans From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 8 19:35:06 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:35:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. Message-ID: One player pulled her hand from the wrong board. The mistake became obvious when she showed her hand as dummy. That pretty much made two boards unplayable, and I gave artificial adjusted scores. The reason I am writing is that it is somewhat strange that TFLB doesn't say what to do when a player uses the wrong hand. It isn't that uncommon of a mistake. From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 8 19:44:57 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:44:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:35:06 EST." Message-ID: <20110208184459.2DFF3A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert wrote: > One player pulled her hand from the wrong board. The mistake became > obvious when she showed her hand as dummy. > > That pretty much made two boards unplayable, and I gave artificial > adjusted scores. The reason I am writing is that it is somewhat strange > that TFLB doesn't say what to do when a player uses the wrong hand. 17D? -- Adam From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Feb 8 19:54:24 2011 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 19:54:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. In-Reply-To: <20110208184459.2DFF3A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110208184459.2DFF3A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D519160.2030208@vwalther.de> On 08.02.2011 19:44, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Robert wrote: > >> One player pulled her hand from the wrong board. The mistake became >> obvious when she showed her hand as dummy. >> >> That pretty much made two boards unplayable, and I gave artificial >> adjusted scores. The reason I am writing is that it is somewhat strange >> that TFLB doesn't say what to do when a player uses the wrong hand. > > 17D? > > -- Adam And 16 C > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Tue Feb 8 21:51:09 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:51:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301cbc7d1$ea3fe7a0$bebfb6e0$@com> Robert Frick writes: One player pulled her hand from the wrong board. The mistake became obvious when she showed her hand as dummy. That pretty much made two boards unplayable, and I gave artificial adjusted scores. The reason I am writing is that it is somewhat strange that TFLB doesn't say what to do when a player uses the wrong hand. It isn't that uncommon of a mistake. ________________________________________________________________ Law 17D does say, but it could be at a better place in the TFLB than under "Law 17: The Auction Period". IMHO, Cards from the Wrong Board should be a specific Law. Laval Du Breuil Quebec From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Tue Feb 8 23:04:42 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 23:04:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids In-Reply-To: <00f001cbc793$3b773860$b265a920$@nl> References: <00f001cbc793$3b773860$b265a920$@nl> Message-ID: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> W dniu 2011-02-08 14:22, Hans van Staveren pisze: > > Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed to do so. > Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer plays in next trick. Now > it is detected that dummy played the wrong card. > > Reading literally I would say: > > 1)In the first of these two tricks both defenders can change their > card. If RHO of declarer changes in that trick declarer can change. > > 2)Declarer cannot change his card in the second trick. Should he not > have won the first trick he is now leading out of turn, but being > declarer he can take it back. Could this LOOT be accepted? > > Who disagrees? > Me. *47 D. Following Opponent's Change of Play* After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply). ?K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110208/cdaa1d0e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 8 23:43:43 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:43:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. In-Reply-To: <000301cbc7d1$ea3fe7a0$bebfb6e0$@com> References: <000301cbc7d1$ea3fe7a0$bebfb6e0$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:51:09 -0500, laval dubreuil wrote: > Robert Frick writes: > > One player pulled her hand from the wrong board. The mistake became > obvious when she showed her hand as dummy. > > That pretty much made two boards unplayable, and I gave artificial > adjusted scores. The reason I am writing is that it is somewhat strange > that TFLB doesn't say what to do when a player uses the wrong hand. It > isn't that uncommon of a mistake. > ________________________________________________________________ > Law 17D does say, but it could be at a better place in the TFLB than > under "Law 17: The Auction Period". IMHO, Cards from the Wrong Board > should be a specific Law. Probably right. I couldn't find it. Maybe part of my problem was that we weren't in the auction period any more. So I was expecting something more general. From adam at irvine.com Tue Feb 8 23:56:04 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:56:04 -0800 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:43:43 EST." Message-ID: <20110208225607.9A53EA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert wrote: > On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:51:09 -0500, laval dubreuil > wrote: > > > Robert Frick writes: > > > > One player pulled her hand from the wrong board. The mistake became > > obvious when she showed her hand as dummy. > > > > That pretty much made two boards unplayable, and I gave artificial > > adjusted scores. The reason I am writing is that it is somewhat strange > > that TFLB doesn't say what to do when a player uses the wrong hand. It > > isn't that uncommon of a mistake. > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Law 17D does say, but it could be at a better place in the TFLB than > > under "Law 17: The Auction Period". IMHO, Cards from the Wrong Board > > should be a specific Law. > > Probably right. I couldn't find it. Maybe part of my problem was that we > weren't in the auction period any more. So I was expecting something more > general. I found it by searching for "wrong board" in a text editor, and I found "Cards taken from wrong board" in the index. Unfortunately, that doesn't help if you are using a hard copy of the rules. Also (at least in the version on the ACBL web site), "Cards taken from wrong board" is a subheading in the index under "Auction period". So that's no help at all. On the other hand, making it a separate law would probably require renumbering most of the other laws, making it difficult for directors who know that Insufficient Bids are covered under Law 27 to find what they need, so that probably won't fly either. Perhaps what's needed is a better index, or some sort of cross reference. That's something the Laws' authors don't have to do. Anyone can do it. Maybe that would be a nice project for some BLMLer who has time on their hands. Not me. I don't have that kind of time. I don't even have time to finish this po From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Wed Feb 9 00:21:50 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 18:21:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. In-Reply-To: <20110208225607.9A53EA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:43:43 EST." <20110208225607.9A53EA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000b01cbc7e6$f7629670$e627c350$@com> > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Law 17D does say, but it could be at a better place in the TFLB than > > under "Law 17: The Auction Period". IMHO, Cards from the Wrong Board > > should be a specific Law. > On the other hand, making it a separate law would probably require renumbering most of the other laws, making it difficult for directors who know that Insufficient Bids are covered under Law 27 to find what they need, so that probably won't fly either. ____________________________________________________________________ Not really. Just make: Law 10 and Law 11 amalgamate under Law 10: Assessment of a Rectification Law 11: Director's Discretionary Powers Law 12: Incorrect Number of Cards Law 13: Missing Card Law 14: Cards from the Wrong Board (actual 17D) Law 15: Play of the Wrong Board Laval Du Breuil Quebec From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 9 01:10:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:10:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] bidding with the wrong hand. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20110208225607.9A53EA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Gilfred Norman Knight (1891-1978) wrote one of the seminal books on indexing which he of course named "Indexing, The Art of". Adam Beneschan: >I found it by searching for "wrong board" in a text editor, and I >found "Cards taken from wrong board" in the index. Unfortunately, >that doesn't help if you are using a hard copy of the rules. Also (at >least in the version on the ACBL web site), "Cards taken from wrong >board" is a subheading in the index under "Auction period". So that's >no help at all. > >On the other hand, making it a separate law would probably require >renumbering most of the other laws, making it difficult for directors >who know that Insufficient Bids are covered under Law 27 to find what >they need, so that probably won't fly either. > >Perhaps what's needed is a better index, or some sort of cross >reference. That's something the Laws' authors don't have to do. >Anyone can do it. Maybe that would be a nice project for some BLMLer >who has time on their hands. Not me. I don't have that kind of >time. I don't even have time to finish this po Richard Hills: The better index already exists. If Adam or Bob had simply chosen to looked in the obvious place, the main index heading "Card", they would have found the subordinate index item "Removal from wrong board 17D" also appearing there. A better index necessarily has massive amounts of redundancy and tautology. The young EBU Director Rick Assad had sufficient youthful enthusiasm to spend time indexing the 1997 Lawbook. By using Rick's index as a framework the 2007 Index was a nice project for some BLMLer who had time on his hands (and thanks to Eitan Levy for correcting some of my indexing errors). I do not quite agree with "anyone can do it". Instead, I would argue that effective indexing not only requires a pernickety attention to detail and a comprehensive knowledge of the work being indexed, but also a large dollop of lateral thinking. Index of this Richard Hills post Anyone Agree, not quite - sixth sentence BLMLer, some - fifth sentence Assad, Rick - fourth sentence, fifth sentence Beneschan, Adam - second sentence Card Removal from wrong board 17D - second sentence Frick, Robert (Bob) - second sentence Hills, Richard - passim Index Better - first sentence, third sentence Effective - seventh sentence Knowledge - seventh sentence Lateral thinking - seventh sentence Main - second sentence Massive Redundancy - third sentence Tautology - third sentence Pernickety - seventh sentence Subordinate item - second sentence Levy, Eitan - fifth sentence Offender's partner perhaps perpetually passing - 27B2, 27B3, 27B4 Wishes, Best - appendix Best wishes 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Feb 9 02:33:04 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:33:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question Message-ID: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin asserts: "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to the 1st and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this not a violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL out on it's own limb again? --Bob Park From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 9 02:51:23 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:51:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:33:04 EST." <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20110209015127.752D5A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> > An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin > asserts: > > "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method > you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." > > I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to the 1st > and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this not a > violation of Law 6B? No, I don't think so. Are you interpreting "one card at a time" to prohibit that? I don't interpret it that way. I think it means you can't take two cards from the deck you're dealing from and put both cards (simultaneously) on the pile for the 1st or 4th hand; but you can still do this one card at a time (take one card from the deck, put it on pile #1, then take another card from the deck and put it on pile #1). Yeah, I know the result is the same. -- Adam From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Feb 9 04:59:21 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 21:59:21 -0600 Subject: [BLML] suggested Definition of presumed declarer Message-ID: [suggested Definition] Presumed declarer. The player who would be declarer if the auction were not reopened and if there was no lead out of turn. [suggested Definition] Presumed dummy. The partner of presumed declarer. [suggested Definition] Defender. An opponent of declarer. The actual Definition of Defender is wrong, because it includes the word _presumed_. [actual Definition] Defender. An opponent of (presumed) declarer. Proof that it is wrong: Any defender can have a penalty card. But the opponent of a presumed declarer who becomes declarer after the auction is reopened cannot have a penalty card. Anyway, what do you think of these three suggested definitions? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 9 07:50:07 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 07:50:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> Message-ID: 2011/2/9 Robert Park : > ?An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin > asserts: > > "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method > you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." I Often deal in 5 stacks: 2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4- etc. After finishing, I've got 6 cards in stack 1, 7 in stack 5 and 13 in the other three stacks. I move stack 1 on top of stack 5 before pocketing the hands. > > I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to the 1st > and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this not a > violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL out on it's > own limb again? > > ? --Bob Park > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 9 07:53:43 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 07:53:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suggested Definition of presumed declarer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/2/9 Jerry Fusselman : > [suggested Definition] Presumed declarer. ?The player who would be > declarer if the auction were not reopened and if there was no lead out > of turn. > > [suggested Definition] Presumed dummy. ?The partner of presumed declarer. > > [suggested Definition] Defender. An opponent of declarer. > > The actual Definition of Defender is wrong, because it includes the > word _presumed_. > > [actual Definition] ?Defender. ?An opponent of (presumed) declarer. > > Proof that it is wrong: ? Any defender can have a penalty card. ?But > the opponent of a presumed declarer who becomes declarer after the > auction is reopened cannot have a penalty card. hmm, the last sentence seem wrong to me: "who becomes declarer" refers to "presumed declarer", not "the opponent". I'd rather have it read: But a presumed declarer's opponent who becomes declarer after the auction is reopened cannot have a penalty card. > > Anyway, what do you think of these three suggested definitions? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Feb 9 08:14:02 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:14:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_6B_question?= In-Reply-To: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1Pn4FW-1KtyAy0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> From: Robert Park > An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin > asserts: > > "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 > method you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in > 1997." > I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to the > 1st and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this > not a violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL > out on it's own limb again? Yes, sure ;-( Law 6B: "The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise." [Peter] I'm pretty sure the law wants to prohibit two consecutive cards be dealt to the same hand, but I must confess, it could have been written better. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Feb 9 08:23:52 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:23:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_45D_on_steroids?= In-Reply-To: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> References: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1Pn4P2-202QnA0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: ?ukasz Kalbarczyk > W dniu 2011-02-08 14:22, Hans van Staveren pisze: > Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed > to do so. Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer > plays in next trick. Now it is detected that dummy played > the wrong card. > > Reading literally I would say: > > 1)????? In the first of these two tricks both defenders > can change their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that > trick declarer can change. > > 2)????? Declarer cannot change his card in the second > trick. Should he not have won the first trick he is now > leading out of turn, but being declarer he can take it back. > Could this LOOT be accepted? > > Who disagrees? > Me. > > 47 D. FOLLOWING OPPONENT'S CHANGE OF PLAY > > After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn > and returned to the hand without further rectification and another > card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply). [Peter] I disagree too ... with ?ukas Special Law 45 D takes precedence over general Law 47 D. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Feb 9 09:17:53 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:17:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suggested Definition of presumed declarer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 09.02.2011, 04:59 Uhr, schrieb Jerry Fusselman : > [suggested Definition] Presumed declarer. The player who would be > declarer if the auction were not reopened and if there was no lead out > of turn. > > [suggested Definition] Presumed dummy. The partner of presumed declarer. > > [suggested Definition] Defender. An opponent of declarer. > > The actual Definition of Defender is wrong, because it includes the > word _presumed_. > > [actual Definition] Defender. An opponent of (presumed) declarer. > > Proof that it is wrong: Any defender can have a penalty card. But > the opponent of a presumed declarer who becomes declarer after the > auction is reopened cannot have a penalty card. > I wonder how a definition can ever be "wrong". Your proof only shows that the theorem "Any defender can have a penalty card." is wrong - which does suggest some tidying up when the laws will next be reviewed. > Anyway, what do you think of these three suggested definitions? If you drop the "(presumed)" in the definition, you will need a new term for various laws such as 22B1 "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead." because, for lack of a declarer, there would not be a defender before the opening lead is faced. Regards, Petrus From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 9 10:19:07 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:19:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suggested Definition of presumed declarer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601cbc83a$67d790b0$3786b210$@no> On Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > > If you drop the "(presumed)" in the definition, you will need a new term for various > laws such as 22B1 "The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the > auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead." > because, for lack of a declarer, there would not be a defender before the opening > lead is faced. Well, the defending side is (only) presumed until the opening lead is faced. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 9 13:11:10 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:11:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids In-Reply-To: <1Pn4P2-202QnA0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> <1Pn4P2-202QnA0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <014201cbc852$70732960$51597c20$@nl> From: ?ukasz Kalbarczyk > W dniu 2011-02-08 14:22, Hans van Staveren pisze: > Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed > to do so. Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer > plays in next trick. Now it is detected that dummy played > the wrong card. > > Reading literally I would say: > > 1) In the first of these two tricks both defenders > can change their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that > trick declarer can change. > > 2) Declarer cannot change his card in the second > trick. Should he not have won the first trick he is now > leading out of turn, but being declarer he can take it back. > Could this LOOT be accepted? > > Who disagrees? > Me. > > 47 D. FOLLOWING OPPONENT'S CHANGE OF PLAY > > After an opponent's change of play a played card may be withdrawn > and returned to the hand without further rectification and another > card may be substituted. (Laws 16D and 62C2 may apply). [Peter] I disagree too ... with ?ukas Special Law 45 D takes precedence over general Law 47 D. [Hans] As far as I can see law 45D says nothing about declarers card in the next trick, so how can it overrule 47D? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Feb 9 14:04:08 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:04:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4D5290C8.1020900@comcast.net> On 2/9/11 1:50 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2011/2/9 Robert Park: >> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin >> asserts: >> >> "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method >> you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." > I Often deal in 5 stacks: 2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4- etc. After > finishing, I've got 6 cards in stack 1, 7 in stack 5 and 13 in the > other three stacks. I move stack 1 on top of stack 5 before pocketing the hands. Yes...I do that too. Certainly seems to meet the one-at-a-time requirement. And I understand the ACBL has declared this legal. >> I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to the 1st >> and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this not a >> violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL out on it's >> own limb again? >> >> --Bob Park From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Feb 9 14:10:39 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:10:39 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <1Pn4FW-1KtyAy0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <1Pn4FW-1KtyAy0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4D52924F.60207@comcast.net> On 2/9/11 2:14 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Robert Park >> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin >> asserts: >> >> "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 >> method you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in >> 1997." >> I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to the >> 1st and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this >> not a violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL >> out on it's own limb again? > Yes, sure ;-( > > Law 6B: > "The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, > into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then > placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. > The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt > in rotation, clockwise." > > [Peter] > I'm pretty sure the law wants to prohibit two consecutive > cards be dealt to the same hand, but I must confess, > it could have been written better. > > Sounds like we need to hear from Grattan (or from anyone else there at the time) as to what the original intent was. FWIW, I have had a 20,000 master point player sit at our table, riffle the deck once, and then proceed to deal in the 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1 style. Sure enough, he got a wildly distributional deal, which his more experienced side could handle better than we could. --bp From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 9 14:11:43 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:11:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids In-Reply-To: <014201cbc852$70732960$51597c20$@nl> References: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> <1Pn4P2-202QnA0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <014201cbc852$70732960$51597c20$@nl> Message-ID: <002601cbc85a$e6370b50$b2a521f0$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren ................. > As far as I can see law 45D says nothing about declarer's card in the next trick, so > how can it overrule 47D? >From Law 45D: a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer?s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. For defenders this law does not specify that the card must have been played to "that" trick, consequently also a card led by a defender to the next trick may be withdrawn. Effectively this makes Law 45D a copy of Law 47D as far as the defenders are concerned. For declarer this law explicitly specifies "a card he had subsequently played to that trick". This clause excludes card(s) he had played to other tricks (i.e. a card led to the next trick) and therefore makes Law 45D a more specific law than Law 47D as far as declarer is concerned. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 9 14:38:05 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:38:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> Message-ID: <65FE018D-EB50-42C7-B0D1-DBE85E172981@starpower.net> On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Robert Park wrote: > An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL > Bulletin > asserts: > > "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 > method > you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." > > I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to > the 1st > and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this > not a > violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL out on > it's > own limb again? That was an error by the Bulletin editor in his reply. The actual method described in the letter was a legal one: the 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2... pattern, where piles 1 and 5 combine into one 13-card hand. The letter writer was explicitly offering this method as an alternative to the illegal 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1... Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Feb 9 15:49:53 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:49:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <65FE018D-EB50-42C7-B0D1-DBE85E172981@starpower.net> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <65FE018D-EB50-42C7-B0D1-DBE85E172981@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D52A991.5000708@comcast.net> On 2/9/11 8:38 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL >> Bulletin >> asserts: >> >> "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 >> method >> you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." >> >> I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to >> the 1st >> and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this >> not a >> violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL out on >> it's >> own limb again? > That was an error by the Bulletin editor in his reply. The actual > method described in the letter was a legal one: the > 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2... pattern, where piles 1 and 5 combine into one > 13-card hand. The letter writer was explicitly offering this method > as an alternative to the illegal 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1... > Sounds right. Is the Bulletin planning a retraction? What's the source of your information? --bp From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 9 22:11:18 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:11:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <4D52A991.5000708@comcast.net> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <65FE018D-EB50-42C7-B0D1-DBE85E172981@starpower.net> <4D52A991.5000708@comcast.net> Message-ID: <86E48FE9-1BD4-411E-9C07-071D161C6FEE@starpower.net> On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Robert Park wrote: > On 2/9/11 8:38 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Feb 8, 2011, at 8:33 PM, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL >>> Bulletin >>> asserts: >>> >>> "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 >>> method >>> you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." >>> >>> I have always thought that that method deals 2 cards in a row to >>> the 1st >>> and 4th hands on all but the start and close of the deal. Is this >>> not a >>> violation of Law 6B? Where am I going wrong? Or is the ACBL out on >>> it's >>> own limb again? >> >> That was an error by the Bulletin editor in his reply. The actual >> method described in the letter was a legal one: the >> 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2... pattern, where piles 1 and 5 combine into one >> 13-card hand. The letter writer was explicitly offering this method >> as an alternative to the illegal 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1... > > Sounds right. Is the Bulletin planning a retraction? What's the source > of your information? The original letter and reply (in this month's Bulletin). Either the editor miswrote, or was very unclear. His reply referred to "the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method you describe", but what the letter-writer actually described was the 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2- method. I offer "very unclear" because the letter-write did refer to the 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1- method, offering "his" method as a legal alternative. Thus the editor *may* have been trying to indicate that this was no longer necessary, as the 2008 L6B *could* conceivably be interpreted as permitting 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1-. But I, and, I think, most readers, would disagree with that interpretation, which would also allow dealing 13 consecutive cards to each hand, provided they were put there one at a time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 9 22:58:35 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:58:35 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:11:18 EST." <86E48FE9-1BD4-411E-9C07-071D161C6FEE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20110209215837.B2E9DA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > I offer "very unclear" because the letter-write did refer to the > 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1- method, offering "his" method as a legal > alternative. Thus the editor *may* have been trying to indicate that > this was no longer necessary, as the 2008 L6B *could* conceivably be > interpreted as permitting 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1-. But I, and, I think, > most readers, would disagree with that interpretation, which would > also allow dealing 13 consecutive cards to each hand, provided they > were put there one at a time. OK, I may have made a mistake. Somehow, I thought the only real requirement was that each four cards be dealt to four different hands. I could understand a requirement like that, since it cuts down on misdeals. (If follow that requirement, and the cards don't stick together, you will always end up with four 13-card hands.) But that requirement isn't even there. It sounds like the only criterion here is that the cards are dealt into four hands of 13 cards each and that, according to this interpretation, no two consecutive cards are dealt to the same hand. So this means, for instance, that if I deal two hands---i.e. deal the first 26 cards into two hands, in alternating order, and then deal the last 26 cards into the other two hands, in alternating order, and then give the first two hands to North and South and the last two to East and West, this is perfectly legal---even though I'd think that this would lead to wilder distribution than the (apparently illegal) 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1-1-2-... method when starting with a poorly randomized deck. I'm not sure what the purpose of any requirements of 6B (beyond the requirement to deal four hands of 13 cards) is. Is it to prevent gross variances from the statistically expected distribution of hand distributions when the deck is poorly shuffled? Is it to make it harder for sharp dealers to rig the hand? Is it to require procedures that are less likely to result in misdeals? I don't know. Whatever the purpose is, does the current wording of the Law serve that purpose? -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 9 23:28:54 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:28:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20110209215837.B2E9DA8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Law 6B (The Deal): "The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, into four hands of thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four pockets of the board. The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt in rotation, clockwise." Adam Beneschan: >..... >I'm not sure what the purpose of any requirements of 6B (beyond >the requirement to deal four hands of 13 cards) is. >Is it.....? >Is it.....? >Is it.....? >I don't know. Whatever the purpose is, does the current >wording of the Law serve that purpose? Richard Hills: In an earlier edition of the Lawbook the second sentence of Law 6B made it compulsory for cards to be dealt in rotation, clockwise. I believe that the change to a mere "recommended procedure" was to stop a Secretary Bird wasting the Director's time on a triviality. As for "one card at a time, into four hands", the classic way to create a goulash was to deal four cards at a time into each hand from a somewhat imperfectly shuffled pack. This would artificially increase the chances of long suits and bad breaks. "Does the current wording of the Law serve that purpose?" Perhaps not; the fact that there is some doubt in the ACBL about the legality of 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1 suggests that in 2018 a footnote may be usefully added to Law 6B. * consecutive cards may not be placed into the same hand Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 9 23:36:32 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:36:32 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:28:54 +1100." Message-ID: <20110209223635.32BD7A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > As for "one card at a time, into four hands", the classic way > to create a goulash was to deal four cards at a time into each > hand from a somewhat imperfectly shuffled pack. Is "somewhat imperfectly" a tongue-in-cheek way of saying "not at all"? That's how we used to goulash deals. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 10 01:26:35 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:26:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >>>Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed to >>>do so. Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer plays >>>in next trick. Now it is detected that dummy played the >>>wrong card. >>> >>>Reading literally I would say: >>> >>>1)????? In the first of these two tricks both defenders can >>>change their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that trick >>>declarer can change. >>>2)????? Declarer cannot change his card in the second trick. >>>Should he not have won the first trick he is now leading out >>>of turn, but being declarer he can take it back. Could this >>>LOOT be accepted? >>> >>>Who disagrees? ?ukasz Kalbarczyk: >>Me. >> >>47 D. Following Opponent's Change of Play >>After an opponent's change of play a played card may be >>withdrawn and returned to the hand without further >>rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws >>16D and 62C2 may apply) Sven Pran: >From Law 45D: >a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played >after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if >declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card >he had subsequently played to that trick. > >For defenders this law does not specify that the card must >have been played to "that" trick, consequently also a card led >by a defender to the next trick may be withdrawn. Effectively >this makes Law 45D a copy of Law 47D as far as the defenders >are concerned. > >For declarer this law explicitly specifies "a card he had >subsequently played to that trick". This clause excludes >card(s) he had played to other tricks (i.e. a card led to the >next trick) and therefore makes Law 45D a more specific law >than Law 47D as far as declarer is concerned. Richard Hills: I join ?ukasz in disagreeing with Sven. (I note that Hans has not committed himself one way or the other, as Hans carefully used the words "reading literally".) The majority sentiment of the ACBL Laws Commission was that the 1997 Lawbook "ain't broke, so don't fix it", and hence there should be minimal changes in the content and structure of the replacement 2007 Lawbook. This meant that the 2007 Drafting Committee was faced with a Scylla versus Charybdis dilemma. Either overcome the flawed structure of the Lawbook by inserting zillions of cross- references (thereby confusing grass-roots Directors), or keep cross-references to a minimum (thereby misinforming grass- roots Directors). The 2007 Drafting Committee opted for the Charybdis of merely minimal cross-references(1), then the 2009 Laws Committee tried feeding Charybdis with the kludge "a specific Law over-rides a more general Law". The problem with this 2009 kludge is that Herman De Wael could correctly argue that Law 20F5(a) is more specific than Law 20F4 (and hence Law 20F5(a) over-rides Law 20F4), and that Sven Pran could correctly argue that Law 45D is more specific than Law 47D (and hence Law 45D over-rides Law 47D), when neither of those correct arguments matched the intentions of the 2007 Drafting Committee nor the beliefs of the 2009 Laws Committee. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) But the Introduction (part of the Laws) vaguely advises: "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." So it is permissible for a Director to assume that Law 45D concludes with an omitted cross-reference "(but see Law 47D)", which would mean that Law 47D takes precedence over Law 45D, instead of vice-versa. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 10 09:24:14 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:24:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids In-Reply-To: References: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01a901cbc8fb$e722b8b0$b5682a10$@nl> To recapitulate: Dummy plays card not specified by declarer, trick is completed, declarer thinking he won it(perhaps he did). Declarer plays to next trick, wrong card by dummy is detected. Applicable laws 45D(sure), 47D perhaps. There is no discussion about the first of these two tricks. Dummy replaces card by correct one, RHO can change if he wants(or must), if RHO changes declarer can change, and finally LHO can change. For the next card there is discussion possible. My personal opinion is that 47D holds, so declarer can change if one of the defenders changed the previous trick. As far as I can see the argument about 45D being more specific then 47D is clever, but I do not think it was meant that way by the lawmakers. Furthermore, it leads to an outcome that is in my opinion less fair. There of course remains the (remote) possibility that defenders did not change in previous trick, but declarer did not win it. Now his card in this trick is a LOOT with all the normal consequences. This law might perhaps be phrased a little less ambiguous next time. Hans van Staveren From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 10 10:00:52 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:00:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/02/2011 7:50, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2011/2/9 Robert Park: >> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin >> asserts: >> >> "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method >> you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." > I Often deal in 5 stacks: 2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4- etc. After > finishing, I've got 6 cards in stack 1, 7 in stack 5 and 13 in the > other three stacks. I move stack 1 on top of stack 5 before pocketing > the hands. > AG : I do, too. It seems to be better that the 12344321 method, in that it avoids dealing two consecutive cards to the same player, and is as efficient. From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 10 11:20:24 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:20:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids In-Reply-To: <01a901cbc8fb$e722b8b0$b5682a10$@nl> References: <4D51BDFA.8050602@gmail.com> <01a901cbc8fb$e722b8b0$b5682a10$@nl> Message-ID: <000c01cbc90c$2273b530$675b1f90$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > To recapitulate: > > Dummy plays card not specified by declarer, trick is completed, declarer thinking > he won it(perhaps he did). Declarer plays to next trick, wrong card by dummy is > detected. > > Applicable laws 45D(sure), 47D perhaps. > > There is no discussion about the first of these two tricks. Dummy replaces card by > correct one, RHO can change if he wants(or must), if RHO changes declarer can > change, and finally LHO can change. > > For the next card there is discussion possible. > > My personal opinion is that 47D holds, so declarer can change if one of the > defenders changed the previous trick. > As far as I can see the argument about 45D being more specific then 47D is > clever, but I do not think it was meant that way by the lawmakers. > Furthermore, it leads to an outcome that is in my opinion less fair. As far as defenders are concerned Law 45D is redundant on the option to withdraw a played card because that option is already available from Law 47D (regardless of whether the card to be withdrawn was played to the current trick or led to the next trick). For defenders Law 45D simply copies this provision. As far as declarer is concerned the option to change the card played to the current trick (after RHO changed his card) is also redundant for the same reason. What makes Law 45D not completely redundant on the question of withdrawals is the fact that it for declarer literally and specifically applies only to a card played to the current trick. This specification makes Law 45D "more specific" than Law 47D, and had it not been present in Law 45D there would have been no reason at all for having any rules in Law 45D on withdrawal on cards played; that would have been completely covered by Law 47D. (Note that the option of withdrawing cards played does not begin with dummy playing a card other than the one named, it begins with this played card being withdrawn and replaced with the card named). From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 10 17:57:42 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:57:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:26:35 -0500, wrote: > Hans van Staveren: > >>>> Suppose dummy plays a card without having been instructed to >>>> do so. Trick is completed, won by declarer. Declarer plays >>>> in next trick. Now it is detected that dummy played the >>>> wrong card. >>>> >>>> Reading literally I would say: >>>> >>>> 1) In the first of these two tricks both defenders can >>>> change their card. If RHO of declarer changes in that trick >>>> declarer can change. >>>> 2) Declarer cannot change his card in the second trick. >>>> Should he not have won the first trick he is now leading out >>>> of turn, but being declarer he can take it back. Could this >>>> LOOT be accepted? >>>> >>>> Who disagrees? > > ?ukasz Kalbarczyk: > >>> Me. >>> >>> 47 D. Following Opponent's Change of Play >>> After an opponent's change of play a played card may be >>> withdrawn and returned to the hand without further >>> rectification and another card may be substituted. (Laws >>> 16D and 62C2 may apply) > > Sven Pran: > >> From Law 45D: >> a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played >> after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if >> declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card >> he had subsequently played to that trick. >> >> For defenders this law does not specify that the card must >> have been played to "that" trick, consequently also a card led >> by a defender to the next trick may be withdrawn. Effectively >> this makes Law 45D a copy of Law 47D as far as the defenders >> are concerned. >> >> For declarer this law explicitly specifies "a card he had >> subsequently played to that trick". This clause excludes >> card(s) he had played to other tricks (i.e. a card led to the >> next trick) and therefore makes Law 45D a more specific law >> than Law 47D as far as declarer is concerned. > > Richard Hills: > > I join ?ukasz in disagreeing with Sven. (I note that Hans has > not committed himself one way or the other, as Hans carefully > used the words "reading literally".) > > The majority sentiment of the ACBL Laws Commission was that the > 1997 Lawbook "ain't broke, so don't fix it", and hence there > should be minimal changes in the content and structure of the > replacement 2007 Lawbook. > > This meant that the 2007 Drafting Committee was faced with a > Scylla versus Charybdis dilemma. Either overcome the flawed > structure of the Lawbook by inserting zillions of cross- > references (thereby confusing grass-roots Directors), or keep > cross-references to a minimum (thereby misinforming grass- > roots Directors). > > The 2007 Drafting Committee opted for the Charybdis of merely > minimal cross-references(1), then the 2009 Laws Committee tried > feeding Charybdis with the kludge "a specific Law over-rides a > more general Law". > > The problem with this 2009 kludge is that Herman De Wael could > correctly argue that Law 20F5(a) is more specific than Law > 20F4 (and hence Law 20F5(a) over-rides Law 20F4), and that Sven > Pran could correctly argue that Law 45D is more specific than > Law 47D (and hence Law 45D over-rides Law 47D), when neither of > those correct arguments matched the intentions of the 2007 > Drafting Committee nor the beliefs of the 2009 Laws Committee. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > (1) But the Introduction (part of the Laws) vaguely advises: > > "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any > law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference." > > So it is permissible for a Director to assume that Law 45D > concludes with an omitted cross-reference "(but see Law 47D)", > which would mean that Law 47D takes precedence over Law 45D, > instead of vice-versa. > Interesting opinion! Can I ask you to develop it further? Are directors allowed to ignore apparently ommitted parts of laws? Or if they feel like something is omitted from a law, they can decide whether or not to follow the apparently omitted part? How confident does a director have to be before he is allowed (or required) to follow a possibly omitted part of a law? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 10 18:33:02 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:33:02 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I share Robert's interest. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > > Interesting opinion! Can I ask you to develop it further? > > Are directors allowed to ignore apparently ommitted parts of laws? Or if > they feel like something is omitted from a law, they can decide whether or > not to follow the apparently omitted part? > > How confident does a director have to be before he is allowed (or > required) to follow a possibly omitted part of a law? > From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 10 21:28:38 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:28:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601cbc961$1a03f9f0$4e0bedd0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ................ > > So it is permissible for a Director to assume that Law 45D concludes > > with an omitted cross-reference "(but see Law 47D)", which would mean > > that Law 47D takes precedence over Law 45D, instead of vice-versa. > > > > Interesting opinion! Can I ask you to develop it further? > > Are directors allowed to ignore apparently ommitted parts of laws? "apparently" omitted????? I would say that the cross reference to Law 47D has deliberately been omitted as not wanted in Law 45D. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 10 23:58:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:58:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601cbc961$1a03f9f0$4e0bedd0$@no> Message-ID: John Raymond Carson: Scintillate, scintillate Globule lucific Fain would I fathom Thy nature specific Loftily perched In the ether capacious Strongly resembling A gem carbonaceous. Sven Pran: >>..... >>I would say that the cross reference to Law 47D has >>deliberately been omitted as not wanted in Law 45D. Hans van Staveren: >..... >As far as I can see the argument about 45D being more >specific than 47D is clever, but I do not think it was >meant that way by the lawmakers. Richard Hills: Yes, in my opinion Hans is correct and Sven is incorrect in their mutually exclusive assessments of the intent of the 2007 Drafting Committee. When amending a Lawbook written in "scintillate, scintillate" recondite English (rather than "twinkle, twinkle" plain English) it is easy for a Drafting Committee to accidentally trip over their own bootlaces. Hans van Staveren: >Furthermore, it leads to an outcome that is in my >opinion less fair. >..... Richard Hills: Yes, again I agree with Hans. If one applies the test of reductio ad absurdum to Sven Pran's alternative analysis, then: (a) an error on trick six is discovered on trick seven, (b) the offending declarer's trick six card may be withdrawn, but (c) the offending declarer's trick seven card may not be withdrawn. An absurd outcome, so out of the two prima facie valid interpretations the Sven Pran interpretation is false, making the Hans van Staveren interpretation necessarily true. QED Robert Frick: >>>..... >>>How confident does a director have to be before he is >>>allowed (or required) to follow a possibly omitted >>>part of a law? Richard Hills: Perhaps a misunderstanding by Robert Frick. Although Bob might like to do so, a Director cannot create new Laws nor new parts of Laws. A Director is merely empowered by the Introduction (part of the Laws) to create new cross-references. That is, when two Laws paradoxically contradict each other, and there is not any guidance from the ACBL Laws Commission, then the Director decides which of those two Laws has priority over the other. As for the confidence level of the Director, the two relevant Laws are: Law 81B2: The Director applies, and ***is bound by, these Laws*** and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Law 81C2: The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to administer and ***interpret these Laws*** and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 11 00:19:31 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:19:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601cbc961$1a03f9f0$4e0bedd0$@no> Message-ID: <000b01cbc978$f931a570$eb94f050$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > Yes, again I agree with Hans. If one applies the test of reductio ad absurdum to > Sven Pran's alternative analysis, then: > > (a) an error on trick six is discovered on trick seven, > (b) the offending declarer's trick six card may be withdrawn, but > (c) the offending declarer's trick seven card may not be withdrawn. > > An absurd outcome, so out of the two prima facie valid interpretations the Sven > Pran interpretation is false, making the Hans van Staveren interpretation > necessarily true. QED I am not convinced. The scenario is as follows: Declarer calls a card from dummy who however plays a different card. Declarer wins the trick and then leads to the next trick at which point attention is called to dummy's error. RHO changes his card played and Declarer is now allowed to change his card. Case A: Declarer still wins the trick. Why should Declarer now be allowed to change his lead to the next trick (unless of course in the special case when he has selected the card originally led to the next trick as the card he wants to substitute for the withdrawn card in the current trick)? Case B: The trick has now been won by the defending side and Declarer's lead to the next trick is a lead out of turn. Why should the defending side not be allowed to treat it as such? Please remember that the declaring side is the offending side in this irregularity. I do not see any absurdity from my understanding of Law 45D in any of these two cases? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 11 02:05:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:05:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01cbc978$f931a570$eb94f050$@no> Message-ID: >Please remember that the declaring side is the offending >side in this irregularity. Please remember that the Laws "are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities". Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Feb 11 02:44:22 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:44:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: > Le 9/02/2011 7:50, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> 2011/2/9 Robert Park: >>> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin >>> asserts: >>> >>> "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method >>> you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." >> I Often deal in 5 stacks: 2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4- etc. After >> finishing, I've got 6 cards in stack 1, 7 in stack 5 and 13 in the >> other three stacks. I move stack 1 on top of stack 5 before pocketing >> the hands. >> > AG : I do, too. It seems to be better that the 12344321 method, in that > it avoids dealing two consecutive cards to the same player, and is as > efficient. However, it isn't mathematically as good. Dealing 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2 gives player 1 cards 1, 5, 9, 13, etc., just as conventional dealing dows. If the deck was sorted before shuffling, player 1 is more likely to get cards that were near the top. That's the mathematical advantage of 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1; player 1 gets cards 1, 8, 9, 16, etc., and thus gets cards in about the same average position as other players. The practical disadvantage is that two cards might stick together in the shuffle, and a player would be more likely to get both of them. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Feb 11 03:08:19 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:08:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 12:44 PM 11/02/2011, you wrote: > "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: > > > Le 9/02/2011 7:50, Harald Skj??ran a ??crit : > >> 2011/2/9 Robert Park: > >>> An editor's comment on page 7 (Letters) of the February ACBL Bulletin > >>> asserts: > >>> > >>> "The Laws no longer prohibit dealing in the 1-2-3-4 then 4-3-2-1 method > >>> you describe. Law 6 (The Shuffle and Deal) was changed in 1997." > >> I Often deal in 5 stacks: 2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1-2-3-4-5-4- etc. After > >> finishing, I've got 6 cards in stack 1, 7 in stack 5 and 13 in the > >> other three stacks. I move stack 1 on top of stack 5 before pocketing > >> the hands. > >> > > AG : I do, too. It seems to be better that the 12344321 method, in that > > it avoids dealing two consecutive cards to the same player, and is as > > efficient. > >However, it isn't mathematically as >good. Dealing 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2 gives player >1 cards 1, 5, 9, 13, etc., just as conventional >dealing dows. If the deck was >sorted before shuffling, player 1 is more likely >to get cards that were near the >top. > >That's the mathematical advantage of >1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1; player 1 gets cards 1, 8, >9, 16, etc., and thus gets cards in about the same average position as other >players. The practical disadvantage is that two >cards might stick together in >the shuffle, and a player would be more likely to get both of them. If you are not going to predeal the hands, it is important to shuffle the cards for about 2 minutes longer than anyone thinks. I once showed by randomly cutting an ordered deck up to 50 times, that there still remained enough "memory" to be measurable. It was long ago (40 years), and so I forget the full details. I was writing a program to produce bridge hands, and my friend was doing the same to play solitaire. Once you have got yourself a properly shuffled deck, you might as well take the first 13 cards for hand 1 and so on. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 11 09:31:19 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:31:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01cbc978$f931a570$eb94f050$@no> Message-ID: <000601cbc9c6$0f08e5a0$2d1ab0e0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > >Please remember that the declaring side is the offending side in this > >irregularity. > > Please remember that the Laws "are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities". My interpretation of law 45D implies no element of punishment, but it protects the interests of the non-offending side. From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 11 09:37:33 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:37:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701cbc9c6$ed995e30$c8cc1a90$@no> On Behalf Of David Grabiner > > AG : I do, too. It seems to be better that the 12344321 method, in > > that it avoids dealing two consecutive cards to the same player, and > > is as efficient. > > However, it isn't mathematically as good. Dealing 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2 gives player > 1 cards 1, 5, 9, 13, etc., just as conventional dealing dows. If the deck was sorted > before shuffling, player 1 is more likely to get cards that were near the top. > > That's the mathematical advantage of 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1; player 1 gets cards 1, 8, 9, > 16, etc., and thus gets cards in about the same average position as other players. > The practical disadvantage is that two cards might stick together in the shuffle, > and a player would be more likely to get both of them. The mathematical advantage of 12345432123454321 is that players 2 and 4 get cards spaced alternatively 2 and 4 cards apart instead of the "regular" 3 cards apart while still no player gets adjacent cards. For a perfectly shuffled deck this makes no difference, but with an imperfectly shuffled deck it breaks up the pattern for these two players a bit further. For players 1 and 3 there is of course no difference between 123412341234 and 12345432123454321 From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 11 10:40:30 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:40:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <000701cbc9c6$ed995e30$c8cc1a90$@no> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <000701cbc9c6$ed995e30$c8cc1a90$@no> Message-ID: <4D55040E.8070101@skynet.be> I neveer looked at this in this way: Sven Pran wrote: > > The mathematical advantage of 12345432123454321 is that players 2 and > 4 get cards spaced alternatively 2 and 4 cards apart instead of the > "regular" 3 cards apart while still no player gets adjacent cards. > > For a perfectly shuffled deck this makes no difference, but with an > imperfectly shuffled deck it breaks up the pattern for these two > players a bit further. > > For players 1 and 3 there is of course no difference between > 123412341234 and 12345432123454321 And this 3 cards apart thing is just what we don't need. The problem is this: if all four players contribute a heart to trick one (quite likely), these 4 hearts end up on the bottom of a stack of 13 cards. They are put into the board that way, and taken out again at the start of the enxt tournament. The four heaps are put on top of one another and the 4 hearts are now in positions 13,26,39 and 52. If you don't shuffle, these 4 cards end up in pile 1,2,3,4 (classical dealing) and 5,2,3,4 (5 heap dealing). Leading, in both cases, to more than usual flat distributions. So the answer is still: good shuffling. I do like the 123454321 method though, as it allows for easy movement (I'm dancing on my chair). -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Fri Feb 11 10:55:47 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:55:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01cbc978$f931a570$eb94f050$@no> References: <000601cbc961$1a03f9f0$4e0bedd0$@no> <000b01cbc978$f931a570$eb94f050$@no> Message-ID: <4D5507A3.70108@gmail.com> W dniu 2011-02-11 00:19, Sven Pran pisze: > Case A: Declarer still wins the trick. > Why should Declarer now be allowed to change his lead to the next trick > (unless of course in the special case when he has selected the card > originally led to the next trick as the card he wants to substitute for the > withdrawn card in the current trick)? Very __artifical__ example. Dummy: 102 RHO: KJ34 Declarer: AQ956 LHO: 78 Declarer says: small Dummy plays: 10 RHO: J Declarer: Q LHO: 7 Next trick: Declarer: 5 (small). The right trick: Declarer says: small Dummy plays: small RHO: K Declarer: A LHO: 7 Now Declarer wants to play Q instead of a small. > I do not see any absurdity from my understanding of Law 45D in any of these > two cases? Absurdity is not allowing to change card when cards played by opponents were changed. ?K From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 11 12:08:05 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:08:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D5507A3.70108@gmail.com> References: <000601cbc961$1a03f9f0$4e0bedd0$@no> <000b01cbc978$f931a570$eb94f050$@no> <4D5507A3.70108@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301cbc9db$f5822900$e0867b00$@no> On Behalf Of Lukasz Kalbarczyk > > Case A: Declarer still wins the trick. > > Why should Declarer now be allowed to change his lead to the next > > trick (unless of course in the special case when he has selected the > > card originally led to the next trick as the card he wants to > > substitute for the withdrawn card in the current trick)? > > Very __artifical__ example. > > Dummy: 102 > RHO: KJ34 > Declarer: AQ956 > LHO: 78 > > Declarer says: small > Dummy plays: 10 > RHO: J > Declarer: Q > LHO: 7 > > Next trick: > > Declarer: 5 (small). > > The right trick: > > Declarer says: small > Dummy plays: small > RHO: K > Declarer: A > LHO: 7 > > Now Declarer wants to play Q instead of a small. > > > > I do not see any absurdity from my understanding of Law 45D in any of > > these two cases? > > Absurdity is not allowing to change card when cards played by opponents were > changed. Declarer may change his Q to Ace, but why should he be allowed to play the Q to the next trick when he didn't play the Ace before the rectification? >From his own side's irregularity he now knows that East holds the other high honour, information he didn't have before. Allowing him to change his lead from a small to the Queen (possibly because of this information) might be an advantage gained from this irregularity. Yes, I know that Law 16D is applicable, and there is indeed a reference to L16D from L45D, but why make things more difficult than necessary? My understanding of L45D makes the rule absolute; the application of L16D depends on a possible doubtful judgment. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 11 15:30:22 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:30:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > If you are not going to predeal the hands, it is important to > shuffle the cards > for about 2 minutes longer than anyone thinks. I once showed by > randomly > cutting an ordered deck up to 50 times, that there still remained > enough > "memory" to be measurable. It was long ago (40 years), and so I > forget the > full details. I was writing a program to produce bridge hands, and my > friend was doing the same to play solitaire. Once you have got > yourself > a properly shuffled deck, you might as well take the first 13 cards > for hand > 1 and so on. Just a curiosity, not particularly on topic: Take a deck of cards, and divide it into two piles of 26 cards each. Shuffle them "perfectly", so that the cards interleave exactly (no two from the same half of the deck consecutive), starting with the original bottom half, so that the top and bottom cards do not change. Do this eight times and the deck will return to its original order. Try it. I've seen a talented and practiced card manipulator do this smoothly while being observed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Feb 11 18:38:36 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:38:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net><4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08 .syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D55741C.6020109@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > >> If you are not going to predeal the hands, it is important to >> shuffle the cards >> for about 2 minutes longer than anyone thinks. I once showed by >> randomly >> cutting an ordered deck up to 50 times, that there still remained >> enough >> "memory" to be measurable. It was long ago (40 years), and so I >> forget the >> full details. I was writing a program to produce bridge hands, and my >> friend was doing the same to play solitaire. Once you have got >> yourself >> a properly shuffled deck, you might as well take the first 13 cards >> for hand >> 1 and so on. > > Just a curiosity, not particularly on topic: > > Take a deck of cards, and divide it into two piles of 26 cards each. > Shuffle them "perfectly", so that the cards interleave exactly (no > two from the same half of the deck consecutive), starting with the > original bottom half, so that the top and bottom cards do not > change. Do this eight times and the deck will return to its original > order. Try it. I've seen a talented and practiced card manipulator > do this smoothly while being observed. there was an analysis of shuffle in mathematical theory of bridge by borel and cheron. if my memory is reliable, his advice was to shuffle in 4 (slightly imperfect) rounds, as 4 was half of the cycle needed to order back a pack. jpr > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 11 19:26:41 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:26:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:58:14 -0500, wrote: > John Raymond Carson: > > Scintillate, scintillate > Globule lucific > Fain would I fathom > Thy nature specific > Loftily perched > In the ether capacious > Strongly resembling > A gem carbonaceous. > > Sven Pran: > >>> ..... >>> I would say that the cross reference to Law 47D has >>> deliberately been omitted as not wanted in Law 45D. > > Hans van Staveren: > >> ..... >> As far as I can see the argument about 45D being more >> specific than 47D is clever, but I do not think it was >> meant that way by the lawmakers. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, in my opinion Hans is correct and Sven is incorrect > in their mutually exclusive assessments of the intent of > the 2007 Drafting Committee. When amending a Lawbook > written in "scintillate, scintillate" recondite English > (rather than "twinkle, twinkle" plain English) it is > easy for a Drafting Committee to accidentally trip over > their own bootlaces. > > Hans van Staveren: > >> Furthermore, it leads to an outcome that is in my >> opinion less fair. >> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, again I agree with Hans. If one applies the test > of reductio ad absurdum to Sven Pran's alternative > analysis, then: > > (a) an error on trick six is discovered on trick seven, > (b) the offending declarer's trick six card may be > withdrawn, but > (c) the offending declarer's trick seven card may not be > withdrawn. > > An absurd outcome, so out of the two prima facie valid > interpretations the Sven Pran interpretation is false, > making the Hans van Staveren interpretation necessarily > true. QED > > Robert Frick: > >>>> ..... >>>> How confident does a director have to be before he is >>>> allowed (or required) to follow a possibly omitted >>>> part of a law? > > Richard Hills: > > Perhaps a misunderstanding by Robert Frick. Although Bob > might like to do so, a Director cannot create new Laws > nor new parts of Laws. A Director is merely empowered > by the Introduction (part of the Laws) to create new > cross-references. That is, when two Laws paradoxically > contradict each other, and there is not any guidance > from the ACBL Laws Commission, then the Director decides > which of those two Laws has priority over the other. Richard wrote before: So it is permissible for a Director to assume that Law 45D concludes with an omitted cross-reference "(but see Law 47D)", which would mean that Law 47D takes precedence over Law 45D, instead of vice-versa. 1. The introduction doesn't allow directors to insert cross-references. 2. I am not sure what the cross-reference would be. See Law45D for a contradiction? 3. While there perhaps is no guidance from the ACBLLC on how to resolve this conflict, Richard has already pointed out that there is guidance from the WBFLC to use the principle of specificity to resolve the discrepancy here. 4. The idea that directors can add things to a law which were omitted from the laws for simplicity or obviousness is good, and perhaps even unavoidable. The classic example Law 27B, which omits to say how long partner is barred from bidding. The rest of the day? I do not really want the WBFLC clarifying the ambiguity in this law, when every director can fill in the omitted part correctly. (We cannot cross reference to the law explaining that rectifications for an infraction are limited to the hand in question, because that law was also omitted.) From lali808 at gmail.com Fri Feb 11 19:31:58 2011 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:31:58 -1000 Subject: [BLML] declarer card purposely played then changed to follow suit Message-ID: This is a question that came up recently. LHO led a C, dummy being out played a D and declarer had a lapse and also played AD. He then realized he had revoked and having C he changed his card to a C taking the trick. He now plays a H from hand. The question was, could one of the defenders demand that the declarer play that AD that he had purposely played on revoke. Since declarer can't have penalty cards.... he can pick the AD up and play anything after winning the C trick? Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110211/40981b32/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 11 19:53:01 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:53:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application Message-ID: A card was exposed as the players were taking out their hands. The only person who saw the card was the partner of the player who had the card. So the board was easily saved by simply having the two players (east and west) change positions. It was essentially a straightforward application of L16C2(a). To rule this way, I just added a crossreference. Just joking. It would be nice if the lawbook was changed to make this ruling legal. Assuming it wasn't. Bob From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 11 20:01:56 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:01:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] declarer card purposely played then changed to follow suit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000c01cbca1e$278246f0$7686d4d0$@no> If Declarer realizes his revoke before it becomes established (as in your example) he simply withdraws his revoke play and replaces it with a legal play. There is no further rectification. (See Law 62B2) The AD simply becomes a card exposed and taken back with no obligation to play it at a defender's request. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Lali Sent: 11. februar 2011 19:32 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] declarer card purposely played then changed to follow suit This is a question that came up recently. LHO led a C, dummy being out played a D and declarer had a lapse and also played AD. He then realized he had revoked and having C he changed his card to a C taking the trick. He now plays a H from hand. The question was, could one of the defenders demand that the declarer play that AD that he had purposely played on revoke. Since declarer can't have penalty cards.... he can pick the AD up and play anything after winning the C trick? Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110211/f5aea6bc/attachment-0001.html From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Fri Feb 11 20:23:44 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:23:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] declarer card purposely played then changed to follow suit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D558CC0.9060108@gmail.com> W dniu 2011-02-11 19:31, Lali pisze: > This is a question that came up recently. LHO led a C, dummy being > out played a D and declarer had a lapse and also played AD. He then > realized he had revoked and having C he changed his card to a C taking > the trick. He now plays a H from hand. The question was, could one > of the defenders demand that the declarer play that AD that he had > purposely played on revoke. Since declarer can't have penalty > cards.... he can pick the AD up and play anything after winning the C > trick? Law #62 *A. Revoke Must Be Corrected* A player ___must___ correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity ___before it becomes established___. *B. Correcting a Revoke * *[...] * 2. The card may be replaced ___without further rectification___ if it was played from ___declarer's___ (subject to Law 43B2(b)) or dummy's hand, or if it was a defender's faced card. ?K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110211/6f954ebd/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 11 20:35:30 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:35:30 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > > 4. The idea that directors can add things to a law which were omitted from > the laws for simplicity or obviousness is good, and perhaps even > unavoidable. The classic example Law 27B, which omits to say how long > partner is barred from bidding. The rest of the day? I do not really want > the WBFLC clarifying the ambiguity in this law, when every director can > fill in the omitted part correctly. (We cannot cross reference to the law > explaining that rectifications for an infraction are limited to the hand > in question, because that law was also omitted.) > Some on BLML have argued recently that past infractions should be re-punished in later hands. I don't like the idea at all, but some directors apparently want that power. In one case, Eric Landau said that would give a "confirmed cheat" a worse ruling in some cases than an unknown player with the same facts. When I asked why, here was his justification: [Eric] L85 requires the TD to "determin[e] the facts... base[d on] his view on the balance of probabilities... in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect". Typically, "the evidence he is able to collect" consists of the statements made by the players at the table. Assigning "weights" to the collected pieces of verbal evidence perforce requires making judgments as to the credibility of the players supplying it. Absent genuine psychic powers, the best way to judge someone's credibility in a given situation is based on how credible he has proved himself in previous ones. Apparently, Eric would disagree with Robert's idea of imagining that we have a law---"rectifications for an infraction are limited to the hand in question." Personally, if a director really follows Eric's program, I think it should be explicitly stated to the players as one of the conditions of contest, for otherwise, they would be unaware of it. It seems possible to me that Grattan was hinting at this when he brought up conditions of contest in the thread "Alain's case revisited" on January 9. I dislike directors intentionally giving some players better rulings than others correlated to how much the director likes them. (It seems safe to assume that the director does not much like a player he considers a confirmed cheat.) I remember one case where a director exploded in anger against me, telling me my action was "totally unethical." Quite likely, she considers me a confirmed cheat, but she'd be wrong. The auction was (2NT) - P - (.....3C) with a thirty second hesitation. It was unalerted, but I knew from the past that they often don't alert when they should, even though they play lots of interesting stuff, so I said "Please explain 3C." The ACBL conditions of contest state that the proper way to ask a question is with "please explain." Well, the director was furious because she somehow totally convinced herself that I was trying to help my partner understand 3C rather than myself. So I like the idea of adding a law along the lines Robert suggested: "Rectifications for an infraction are limited to the hand in question." Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 11 23:28:41 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:28:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D on steroids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: > John Raymond Carson: > > Scintillate, scintillate > Globule lucific > Fain would I fathom > Thy nature specific > Loftily perched > In the ether capacious > Strongly resembling > A gem carbonaceous. > > Sven Pran: > >>> ..... >>> I would say that the cross reference to Law 47D has >>> deliberately been omitted as not wanted in Law 45D. > > Hans van Staveren: > >> ..... >> As far as I can see the argument about 45D being more >> specific than 47D is clever, but I do not think it was >> meant that way by the lawmakers. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, in my opinion Hans is correct and Sven is incorrect > in their mutually exclusive assessments of the intent of > the 2007 Drafting Committee. When amending a Lawbook > written in "scintillate, scintillate" recondite English > (rather than "twinkle, twinkle" plain English) it is > easy for a Drafting Committee to accidentally trip over > their own bootlaces. > ......................................\x/............................... ................................ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110211/f7e505ec/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Feb 12 02:26:22 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 01:26:22 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1558380E-1707-49D9-8D29-3B42934DE7C5@btinternet.com> On 11 Feb 2011, at 18:53, Robert Frick wrote: > A card was exposed as the players were taking out their hands. The > only > person who saw the card was the partner of the player who had the > card. So > the board was easily saved by simply having the two players (east and > west) change positions. It was essentially a straightforward > application > of L16C2(a). > > To rule this way, I just added a crossreference. Just joking. It > would be > nice if the lawbook was changed to make this ruling legal. Assuming it > wasn't. Why would you assume that? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 12 02:48:45 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:48:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application In-Reply-To: <1558380E-1707-49D9-8D29-3B42934DE7C5@btinternet.com> References: <1558380E-1707-49D9-8D29-3B42934DE7C5@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:26:22 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 11 Feb 2011, at 18:53, Robert Frick wrote: > >> A card was exposed as the players were taking out their hands. The >> only >> person who saw the card was the partner of the player who had the >> card. So >> the board was easily saved by simply having the two players (east and >> west) change positions. It was essentially a straightforward >> application >> of L16C2(a). >> >> To rule this way, I just added a crossreference. Just joking. It >> would be >> nice if the lawbook was changed to make this ruling legal. Assuming it >> wasn't. > > Why would you assume that? It seems clear that, as written, L16C2(a) does not apply, unless you start contorting things. "Assume" might be the wrong word, but I wasn't feeling confident. I haven't read through the entire lawbook in a while. -- somepsychology.com From roger-eymard at orange.fr Sat Feb 12 09:28:39 2011 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:28:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application References: Message-ID: <81D717FEF002450981707EE9829C9FFC@magnifique> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 7:53 PM Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application >A card was exposed as the players were taking out their hands. The only > person who saw the card was the partner of the player who had the card. So > the board was easily saved by simply having the two players (east and > west) change positions. It was essentially a straightforward application > of L16C2(a). > > To rule this way, I just added a crossreference. Just joking. It would be > nice if the lawbook was changed to make this ruling legal. Assuming it > wasn't. > > Bob > It seems legal - Law 5A Roger _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Feb 12 12:16:21 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 11:16:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application In-Reply-To: References: <1558380E-1707-49D9-8D29-3B42934DE7C5@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <7B76ACDC-5905-476A-976A-AA6EF2488601@btinternet.com> On 12 Feb 2011, at 01:48, Robert Frick wrote: > > It seems clear that, as written, L16C2(a) does not apply, unless > you start > contorting things. It doesn't seem clear to me. Could you explain why? Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110212/716b529f/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Feb 12 22:54:12 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:54:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D570184.4040301@nhcc.net> On 2/10/2011 9:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > If you are not going to predeal the hands, it is important to shuffle the cards > for about 2 minutes longer than anyone thinks. I once showed by randomly > cutting an ordered deck up to 50 times, that there still remained enough > "memory" to be measurable. I'm slightly surprised by that result, but cutting adds a lot less entropy than a riffle shuffle. The latter should in principle add something less than 51 bits of entropy, but I think it may be a lot less.* Recall that it takes 96 bits to specify a bridge deal. The famous result (Persi & Diaconis ??) that it takes at least 7 shuffles to randomize a deck is based on the entire 52! permutations of the deck (about 220 bits if I've done the calculation right), but only the "mod 4" location of each card is relevant to bridge. It's a little hard for me to see how a cut can ever randomize a deck for bridge purposes. Any single cut merely reorders the hands, at least if the dealing is 1-2-3-4. Perhaps I've misunderstood what Tony means by "cut." ----- *The riffle shuffle can be modeled by randomly dividing the deck into two parts, then picking one card at a time randomly from each part. It seems to me there should at most 51 binary picks in addition to the random choice of spot to divide the deck, but I have a feeling something is wrong with my reasoning. I'd love for one of the math experts to comment. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Feb 13 01:35:37 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:35:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <4D570184.4040301@nhcc.net> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D570184.4040301@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <201102130035.p1D0Zk9m028642@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 08:54 AM 13/02/2011, you wrote: >On 2/10/2011 9:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > If you are not going to predeal the hands, it is important to > shuffle the cards > > for about 2 minutes longer than anyone thinks. I once showed by randomly > > cutting an ordered deck up to 50 times, that there still remained enough > > "memory" to be measurable. Steve Willner: >I'm slightly surprised by that result, but cutting adds a lot less >entropy than a riffle shuffle. The latter should in principle add >something less than 51 bits of entropy, but I think it may be a lot >less.* Recall that it takes 96 bits to specify a bridge deal. The >famous result (Persi & Diaconis ??) that it takes at least 7 shuffles to >randomize a deck is based on the entire 52! permutations of the deck >(about 220 bits if I've done the calculation right), but only the "mod >4" location of each card is relevant to bridge. > >It's a little hard for me to see how a cut can ever randomize a deck for >bridge purposes. Any single cut merely reorders the hands, at least if >the dealing is 1-2-3-4. Perhaps I've misunderstood what Tony means by >"cut." > >----- >*The riffle shuffle can be modeled by randomly dividing the deck into >two parts, then picking one card at a time randomly from each part. It >seems to me there should at most 51 binary picks in addition to the >random choice of spot to divide the deck, but I have a feeling something >is wrong with my reasoning. I'd love for one of the math experts to >comment. >_______________________________________________ I didn't really want to buy into this rather pointless discussion. It seemed such a waste of time to discuss various manual dealing procedures when people cannot shuffle the deck in the first place. I recalled the olden days when our club was probably the first in Australia to have computerised scoring, and computer generated hands (manually dealt at great personal time cost). The first thing people noticed was that the hands were much wilder than they were used to, so I wanted to try to simulate people dealt hands via computer..that is where a borrowed routine which just cut an ordered deck came in. In those days we were suspicious that RAND(X) might not have not been working properly especially on Monte Carlo calculations where time and memory constraints meant corners had to be cut. Anyway, all good fun and it was never too much of an embarrassment to line up on paydays, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 13 03:05:02 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:05:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application In-Reply-To: <7B76ACDC-5905-476A-976A-AA6EF2488601@btinternet.com> References: <1558380E-1707-49D9-8D29-3B42934DE7C5@btinternet.com> <7B76ACDC-5905-476A-976A-AA6EF2488601@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 06:16:21 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 12 Feb 2011, at 01:48, Robert Frick wrote: >> >> It seems clear that, as written, L16C2(a) does not apply, unless >> you start >> contorting things. > > It doesn't seem clear to me. Could you explain why? The heading for L16B is extraneous information from partner. The heading for L16C is extraneous information from other sources. Partner fumbled the hand to display the card to partner. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Feb 13 09:37:36 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:37:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application In-Reply-To: References: <1558380E-1707-49D9-8D29-3B42934DE7C5@btinternet.com> <7B76ACDC-5905-476A-976A-AA6EF2488601@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Am 13.02.2011, 03:05 Uhr, schrieb Robert Frick : >> >> It doesn't seem clear to me. Could you explain why? > > The heading for L16B is extraneous information from partner. > > The heading for L16C is extraneous information from other sources. "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, ..." > > Partner fumbled the hand to display the card to partner. ... but unless this is information "that may suggest a call or play" it is not a case for 16B, so feel free to apply 16C. Regards, Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sun Feb 13 11:22:59 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:22:59 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L16C2(a) application In-Reply-To: References: <1558380E-1707-49D9-8D29-3B42934DE7C5@btinternet.com> <7B76ACDC-5905-476A-976A-AA6EF2488601@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <061BAB41-3C13-406C-9805-1C42BA174DCD@btinternet.com> On 13 Feb 2011, at 02:05, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 06:16:21 -0500, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> >> On 12 Feb 2011, at 01:48, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> It seems clear that, as written, L16C2(a) does not apply, unless >>> you start >>> contorting things. >> >> It doesn't seem clear to me. Could you explain why? > > The heading for L16B is extraneous information from partner. > > The heading for L16C is extraneous information from other sources. > > Partner fumbled the hand to display the card to partner. The information came from partner's hand, not from partner - partner doesn't even know what the information is. If you compare L16B1a with L16C1 ("by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins"), I think it's clear which one applies to this situation. Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 14 11:04:09 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:04:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <4D55741C.6020109@meteo.fr> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net><4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08 .syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D55741C.6020109@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4D58FE19.9060509@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/02/2011 18:38, Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: >> >>> If you are not going to predeal the hands, it is important to >>> shuffle the cards >>> for about 2 minutes longer than anyone thinks. I once showed by >>> randomly >>> cutting an ordered deck up to 50 times, that there still remained >>> enough >>> "memory" to be measurable. It was long ago (40 years), and so I >>> forget the >>> full details. I was writing a program to produce bridge hands, and my >>> friend was doing the same to play solitaire. Once you have got >>> yourself >>> a properly shuffled deck, you might as well take the first 13 cards >>> for hand >>> 1 and so on. >> Just a curiosity, not particularly on topic: >> >> Take a deck of cards, and divide it into two piles of 26 cards each. >> Shuffle them "perfectly", so that the cards interleave exactly (no >> two from the same half of the deck consecutive), starting with the >> original bottom half, so that the top and bottom cards do not >> change. Do this eight times and the deck will return to its original >> order. Try it. I've seen a talented and practiced card manipulator >> do this smoothly while being observed. AG : just ask him to do it with an used pack ;-) > there was an analysis of shuffle in mathematical theory of bridge by > borel and cheron. if my memory is reliable, his advice was to shuffle in > 4 (slightly imperfect) rounds, as 4 was half of the cycle needed to > order back a pack. AG : notice that the guy mentioned by Tony would be able to predict what happens after four rounds ; you'll in fact need to shuffle imperfectly to make it perfect, if you see what I mean. The best procedure seems to be an alternation of two-pack shuffle and coarse shuffle, followed by 4- or 5-pack alternate dealing. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Feb 15 03:03:12 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:03:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <201102130035.p1D0Zk9m028642@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D570184.4040301@nhcc.net> <201102130035.p1D0Zk9m028642@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> On 2/12/2011 7:35 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > It > seemed such a waste of time to discuss various manual dealing > procedures when people cannot shuffle the deck in the first place. Manual dealing is, alas, all too common in the ACBL. > The first thing > people noticed was that the hands were much wilder than they were > used to, Statistics I've collected on a couple of thousand deals show no significant deviations from the expected hand distributions. That's contrary to some other reported results, including yours above. I think the major difference is that in the ACBL, it has always been common to shuffle hands before returning them to the board. What was the usual practice in your club when you experienced flatter-than- expected distributions? > In those days we were suspicious that > RAND(X) might not have not been working properly It probably wasn't, but I doubt you would have noticed it in bridge deals. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 15 03:34:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:34:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: >>In those days we were suspicious that RAND(X) might not >>have not been working properly >It probably wasn't, but I doubt you would have noticed it >in bridge deals. In the very early days of computer dealing in Australia, a program was designed from scratch and a pons asinorum was not crossed by the programmer. As a result players indeed noticed a disproportionate number of singleton honours in that year's Summer Festival of Bridge. However in earlier years, when the zillions of deals had been created months in advance by humans, there was a skew towards more games and fewer partscores than expectancy. Perhaps because the human quality assurance involved examining the four hands face up (in case there were two diamond sevens but no club seven) then randomly allocating them to the four slots. Except "random" is very hard to achieve for humans, so there may well have been a slight unconscious bias towards placing the two strongest hands into slots belonging to the one partnership. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 15 03:52:04 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:52:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] WBF Laws Committee 2010-2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jaime Ortiz-Pati?o, Chairman Emeritus Ton Kooijman, Chairman Max Bavin Maurizio Di Sacco Joan Gerard Al Levy Chip Martell Jeffrey Polisner William Schoder John Wignall David Davenport, Consultant Secretary: Grattan Endicott Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 15 04:33:02 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:33:02 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Ozymandias [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822): "My name is Edgar Kaplan, lawmaker of lawmakers: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away. >I remember one case where a director exploded in anger >against me, telling me my action was "totally unethical." Richard Hills: There is not any Code of Conduct for Directors in the current Lawbook, but perhaps that would be a worthy inclusion for the 2018 Lawbook. For example, Law 73D1 could be adapted to become the 2018 Law 95: "It is desirable, though not always required, for the Director to maintain steady temperament and unvarying manner. However, the Director should be particularly careful when assessing possible infractions of Laws 72, 73 and/or 74. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a ruling is made is not in itself a Director's error. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an offending player, and at his own risk." >Quite likely, she considers me a confirmed cheat, but >she'd be wrong. The auction was (2NT) - P - (.....3C) >with a thirty second hesitation. It was unalerted, but I >knew from the past that they often don't alert when they >should, even though they play lots of interesting stuff, >so I said "Please explain 3C." Richard Hills: Asking a question to demonstrate that the opponents have committed MI (in this case, a failure to Alert) when you already know that the opponents have committed MI is a work of the mighty Edgar Kaplan, lawmaker of lawmakers. Alas, such a Kaplan Question has had its legality wrecked by Kaplan's successors on the WBF Drafting Committee via the new 2007 Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." >The ACBL conditions of contest state that the proper way >to ask a question is with "please explain." Well, the >director was furious because she somehow totally convinced >herself that I was trying to help my partner understand 3C >rather than myself. Richard Hills: Asking a question for mere curiosity about the "interesting stuff" played by the opponents might also be deemed to be an infraction of Law 20G1 by the Director. Even if there was an immediate bridge "need to know" the meaning of 3C, clause 16.11 of the EBU White Book cautions: "A question about the meaning of a call (even of an alerted call) may provide unauthorised information to partner. For example, suppose a Stayman 2C response to 1NT is alerted in accordance with the regulations for the tournament and a player then asks its meaning. A partner of the enquirer who subsequently leads a club against an ensuing 3NT may well be called upon to demonstrate that he has a hand from which very few players would choose an opening lead in a different suit. The point is that it is not safe to assume that a question provides no unauthorised information just because it is about an alerted call." >So I like the idea of adding a law along the lines Robert >suggested: >"Rectifications for an infraction are limited to the hand >in question." Richard Hills: Such a Robertian new Law would make "the gravest possible offence" Law 73B2 much harder to enforce. So how about some slightly more nuanced wording for such a 2018 Law? "Score adjustment rectifications are based upon the deal and table in question; there is no such thing as the idea of 'protecting the field'. However, procedural and disciplinary penalties may be based upon a pattern of behaviour over several deals and/or sessions." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 15 04:54:54 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:54:54 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question In-Reply-To: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> References: <4D51EED0.2050505@comcast.net> <4D53A944.30601@ulb.ac.be> <201102110208.p1B28J4D026159@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D570184.4040301@nhcc.net> <201102130035.p1D0Zk9m028642@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <201102150355.p1F3tCNo016258@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 01:03 PM 15/02/2011, you wrote: >On 2/12/2011 7:35 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > It > > seemed such a waste of time to discuss various manual dealing > > procedures when people cannot shuffle the deck in the first place. > >Manual dealing is, alas, all too common in the ACBL. > > > The first thing > > people noticed was that the hands were much wilder than they were > > used to, > >Statistics I've collected on a couple of thousand deals show no >significant deviations from the expected hand distributions. That's >contrary to some other reported results, including yours above. I think >the major difference is that in the ACBL, it has always been common to >shuffle hands before returning them to the board. What was the usual >practice in your club when you experienced flatter-than- expected >distributions? > > > In those days we were suspicious that > > RAND(X) might not have not been working properly > >It probably wasn't, but I doubt you would have noticed it in bridge deals. OK. I have a couple of clubs were manual dealing is still practiced ( I tell them it is the one part of their game still capable of improvement). I have occasionally been called upon to play in the ensuing game, and my favourite party trick is to say "I have already played this hand, East has the spade J, and West has the diamond K, to the delight and amazement of all". Nowadays, I ask them to take the cards from the board and reshuffle and redeal all the hands a second time, before starting. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 15 12:51:04 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:51:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 6B question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 01:34 PM 15/02/2011, you wrote: > >>In those days we were suspicious that RAND(X) might not > >>have not been working properly > > >It probably wasn't, but I doubt you would have noticed it > >in bridge deals. RJH: >In the very early days of computer dealing in Australia, a >program was designed from scratch and a pons asinorum was >not crossed by the programmer. As a result players indeed >noticed a disproportionate number of singleton honours in >that year's Summer Festival of Bridge. cut I think this would simply be a function of what I was describing, viz humans thinking the computer deals were not fair. The same as "they always have more slams in the final". Think how difficutlt it would be to have an accidental gremlin which produced singelton honours. On the other hand, I think an early dealing program used at NSWBA (the headquarters of our state bridge assocn), always dealt the club 2 to North. (Don't quote me). Those were happier days. Our diminunitive CTD would look at our hand and announce to the table "It's OK, he has his hesitation", Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 15 14:09:17 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:09:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove Sent: dinsdag 15 februari 2011 12:51 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 6B question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] At 01:34 PM 15/02/2011, you wrote: > >>In those days we were suspicious that RAND(X) might not > >>have not been working properly > > >It probably wasn't, but I doubt you would have noticed it > >in bridge deals. RJH: Well, RAND(X) isn't too great as a PRNG, but the real problem was the lack of bits in the starting value. Read http://www.xs4all.nl/~sater/doc.html for insights that led to the current program used for dealing by EBL/WBF and many others. Hans From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 15 15:02:41 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:02:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> Message-ID: <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > > >>In those days we were suspicious that RAND(X) might not have not > > >>been working properly > > > > >It probably wasn't, but I doubt you would have noticed it in bridge > > >deals. > RJH: > > > Well, RAND(X) isn't too great as a PRNG, but the real problem was the lack of bits > in the starting value. > Read http://www.xs4all.nl/~sater/doc.html for insights that led to the current > program used for dealing by EBL/WBF and many others. > > Hans I am sorry to disagree but the real problem has never been the number of bits in the starting value but too small "PRNG" and lacking understanding on PRNG functioning. (Donald E Knuth: "The Art of Computer Programming" is a valuable resource here.) Earlier random generators used only 16 bits word length. Properly used this was sufficient for generating satisfactory sets of up to maybe 12 deals, no more. After that "serial correlation" in the deals could become significant. But far worse was that many of those early applications had severe programming errors leading to such errors as the deuce of clubs almost always being dealt to the same hand. At some time around 1985 I happened to discover that a (for many years) then widely used program had a failure so that the Queen of Clubs was given to South rather than to North 4 times out of 5 (while East and West received their fair share). To this day I have no idea what was the actual programming error, but in response to my alarm it was apparently fixed because my later tests proved the program to be OK. Only a few years ago I was asked to test another program. That was another program that did not pass my tests. (In case anybody should wonder: Yes, I have also tested BigDeal and found it OK) It is true that about 96 (random) bits of information is needed for the generator being able to produce every possible single deal, but this is not a major requirement for the generator to produce satisfactory sets of deals. I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with a similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say 27 deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information is needed. The fallacy of this logic is that we do not need one single (huge) random number for the deals, only a sufficient amount of smaller random numbers between which there is no demonstrable relation. From henk at ripe.net Tue Feb 15 15:37:56 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:37:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> Message-ID: <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> On 15/02/2011 15:02, Sven Pran wrote: > I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with a > similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say 27 deals > (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information is needed. Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I confirm today what I denied yesterday. Anonymous Politician. From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 15 15:48:34 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:48:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> Message-ID: <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> On Behalf Of Henk > On 15/02/2011 15:02, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with a > > similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say 27 > > deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information is needed. > > Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? Yes and exactly the same as selecting for instance 32 random bits 3 times for each single deal. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 16 00:22:35 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:22:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> Message-ID: <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: dinsdag 15 februari 2011 15:49 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer dealing On Behalf Of Henk > On 15/02/2011 15:02, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with a > > similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say 27 > > deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information is needed. > > Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? Yes and exactly the same as selecting for instance 32 random bits 3 times for each single deal. [HvS] However the problem is in getting it. Suppose you need 96 bits for a deal, and you want 20 hands, so you need 1920 bits. This is for a perfect case, which would be nice. However, most old dealing programs use less than 96 bits for a seed, usually less than 32, which means that after about 40% of about 60000, or about 24000 sequences of hands they are likely(>50%) to repeat a complete set of hands. That is why a large random seed is really necessary. Hans From tom.cheng.tong at gmail.com Wed Feb 16 00:54:12 2011 From: tom.cheng.tong at gmail.com (=?big5?B?VG9tIENoZW5nIL5HtPY=?=) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:54:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> Message-ID: Computer Dealing is interesting; what's more interesting is it's relevance vis-a-vis bridge laws, IMHO. Tom -------------------- On Feb 15, 2011, at 18:22, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Sven Pran > Sent: dinsdag 15 februari 2011 15:49 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer dealing > > On Behalf Of Henk >> On 15/02/2011 15:02, Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with a >>> similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say 27 >>> deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information is > needed. >> >> Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? > > Yes and exactly the same as selecting for instance 32 random bits 3 times > for each single deal. > > [HvS] > > However the problem is in getting it. > Suppose you need 96 bits for a deal, and you want 20 hands, so you need 1920 > bits. > > This is for a perfect case, which would be nice. However, most old dealing > programs use less than 96 bits for a seed, usually less than 32, which means > that after about 40% of about 60000, or about 24000 sequences of hands they > are likely(>50%) to repeat a complete set of hands. > > That is why a large random seed is really necessary. > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Feb 16 01:29:38 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:29:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> Message-ID: As I recall, versions of the Laws have specified requirements for manuals dealing. Its not ridiculous to assume that newer versions of the Laws might comment on the statistical properties of random number generators. On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Tom Cheng ?? wrote: > Computer Dealing is interesting; what's more interesting is it's relevance > vis-a-vis bridge laws, IMHO. > > Tom > > -------------------- > > On Feb 15, 2011, at 18:22, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of > > Sven Pran > > Sent: dinsdag 15 februari 2011 15:49 > > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer dealing > > > > On Behalf Of Henk > >> On 15/02/2011 15:02, Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >>> I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with a > >>> similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say 27 > >>> deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information is > > needed. > >> > >> Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? > > > > Yes and exactly the same as selecting for instance 32 random bits 3 times > > for each single deal. > > > > [HvS] > > > > However the problem is in getting it. > > Suppose you need 96 bits for a deal, and you want 20 hands, so you need > 1920 > > bits. > > > > This is for a perfect case, which would be nice. However, most old > dealing > > programs use less than 96 bits for a seed, usually less than 32, which > means > > that after about 40% of about 60000, or about 24000 sequences of hands > they > > are likely(>50%) to repeat a complete set of hands. > > > > That is why a large random seed is really necessary. > > > > Hans > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110216/4ecf14c3/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 16 01:58:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:58:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Lloyd George (1863-1945), on the House of Lords: "A body of five hundred men chosen at random from amongst the unemployed." Tom Cheng: >>Computer Dealing is interesting; what's more interesting is >>its relevance vis-a-vis bridge laws, IMHO. Richard Willey: >As I recall, versions of the Laws have specified requirements >for manual dealing. > >It's not ridiculous to assume that newer versions of the Laws >might comment on the statistical properties of random number >generators. Current 2007 version of Law 6E4: "The Director may require a different method of dealing or pre- dealing to produce the same wholly random expectations as from A and B above." Current 2007 expectations of Law 6A: " ... thoroughly shuffled ... " Current 2007 expectations of Law 6B: " ... one card at a time ... " Richard Hills: It seems to me that the current 2007 version of Law 6E4 does not need emendation in 2018, as computer pre-dealing (and/or another different method of dealing or pre-dealing) _already_ must meet the very high "wholly random" standard pioneered by the House of Lords. W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), Iolanthe: "The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well." Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 16 02:31:08 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:31:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum Dlr: East Vul: None K86 95432 A32 Q3 QT53 AJ7 6 AT8 K974 JT5 JT84 AK97 942 KQJ7 Q86 652 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C (1) Pass 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H X (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response to a later supplementary question information that "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted of one king, four queens and four jacks). (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or semi-balanced, with the possibility of two doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was explained as a penalty double, not a negative double. East-West did not make any defensive error, thus scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps against the datum. At the table the Director was not summoned. But if the Director had been summoned, would you as Director apply a procedural penalty for East's misinformation about West's negative double? Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Feb 16 09:49:32 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:49:32 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <403C99C9-879D-4C48-B89F-98F08A1B0F19@btinternet.com> On 16 Feb 2011, at 01:31, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > But if the Director had been summoned, would you as > Director apply a procedural penalty for East's > misinformation about West's negative double? What is their actual agreement? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110216/48eecf4e/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 16 11:35:49 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:35:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> Message-ID: <001501cbcdc5$4784fba0$d68ef2e0$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > > > I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with > > > a similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say > > > 27 deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information > > > is > needed. > > > > Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? > > Yes and exactly the same as selecting for instance 32 random bits 3 times for > each single deal. > > [HvS] > > However the problem is in getting it. > Suppose you need 96 bits for a deal, and you want 20 hands, so you need 1920 > bits. > > This is for a perfect case, which would be nice. However, most old dealing > programs use less than 96 bits for a seed, usually less than 32, which means that > after about 40% of about 60000, or about 24000 sequences of hands they are > likely(>50%) to repeat a complete set of hands. > > That is why a large random seed is really necessary. > > Hans I am very sorry to say that this seems to reveal an incorrect understanding of PRNG programming in general and I suspect the fallacy comes from the assumption that a specific pseudo random number will always correspond to a specific deal. Incidentally I know that this is the way BigDeal is programmed, but it is not the only way and in fact is an inferior way. A better way is to have each PRNG output control the transition from one deal to the next so that each deal is a result of both the current seed and the last previous deal. Then even the same seed reused will result in a different deal and my analysis indicates that while 16 bits PRNG can safely be used to produce only about 12 deals in a set the 32 bits PRNG will produce sets with at least 826000 deals without any risk of statistically detectable correlation within a set or between deals in different sets started with different seeds. Don't get me wrong. I am now using BigDeal myself after translating it to Delphi and verifying that its properties are OK. However, I am not satisfied with humans being able to produce "random" data on command so I have implemented a different procedure than the one used in the original BigDeal implementation to obtain all 160 bits for the starting seed. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 16 11:44:23 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:44:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <001501cbcdc5$4784fba0$d68ef2e0$@no> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> <001501cbcdc5$4784fba0$d68ef2e0$@no> Message-ID: <002f01cbcdc6$79617580$6c246080$@nl> I am very interested in discussing this, but let us take it offline, since this gets to be outside the BLML chapter. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: woensdag 16 februari 2011 11:36 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer dealing On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > > > I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that with > > > a similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set of say > > > 27 deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of information > > > is > needed. > > > > Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? > > Yes and exactly the same as selecting for instance 32 random bits 3 times for > each single deal. > > [HvS] > > However the problem is in getting it. > Suppose you need 96 bits for a deal, and you want 20 hands, so you need 1920 > bits. > > This is for a perfect case, which would be nice. However, most old dealing > programs use less than 96 bits for a seed, usually less than 32, which means that > after about 40% of about 60000, or about 24000 sequences of hands they are > likely(>50%) to repeat a complete set of hands. > > That is why a large random seed is really necessary. > > Hans I am very sorry to say that this seems to reveal an incorrect understanding of PRNG programming in general and I suspect the fallacy comes from the assumption that a specific pseudo random number will always correspond to a specific deal. Incidentally I know that this is the way BigDeal is programmed, but it is not the only way and in fact is an inferior way. A better way is to have each PRNG output control the transition from one deal to the next so that each deal is a result of both the current seed and the last previous deal. Then even the same seed reused will result in a different deal and my analysis indicates that while 16 bits PRNG can safely be used to produce only about 12 deals in a set the 32 bits PRNG will produce sets with at least 826000 deals without any risk of statistically detectable correlation within a set or between deals in different sets started with different seeds. Don't get me wrong. I am now using BigDeal myself after translating it to Delphi and verifying that its properties are OK. However, I am not satisfied with humans being able to produce "random" data on command so I have implemented a different procedure than the one used in the original BigDeal implementation to obtain all 160 bits for the starting seed. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 16 12:19:30 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:19:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <002f01cbcdc6$79617580$6c246080$@nl> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> <001501cbcdc5$4784fba0$d68ef2e0$@no> <002f01cbcdc6$79617580$6c246080$@nl> Message-ID: <001601cbcdcb$62152840$263f78c0$@no> Agreed ! Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans > van Staveren > Sent: 16. februar 2011 11:44 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer dealing > > I am very interested in discussing this, but let us take it offline, since this gets to > be outside the BLML chapter. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven > Pran > Sent: woensdag 16 februari 2011 11:36 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer dealing > > On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > > > > I will not go into details on this, only point to the fact that > > > > with a similar logic: In order to have the generator produce a set > > > > of say > > > > 27 deals (for a small event) about 2300 (random) bits of > > > > information is > > needed. > > > > > > Isn't that approximately the same as selecting 96 random bits 27 times? > > > > Yes and exactly the same as selecting for instance 32 random bits 3 > > times > for > > each single deal. > > > > [HvS] > > > > However the problem is in getting it. > > Suppose you need 96 bits for a deal, and you want 20 hands, so you > > need > 1920 > > bits. > > > > This is for a perfect case, which would be nice. However, most old > > dealing programs use less than 96 bits for a seed, usually less than > > 32, which > means that > > after about 40% of about 60000, or about 24000 sequences of hands they > > are > > likely(>50%) to repeat a complete set of hands. > > > > That is why a large random seed is really necessary. > > > > Hans > > I am very sorry to say that this seems to reveal an incorrect understanding of > PRNG programming in general and I suspect the fallacy comes from the > assumption that a specific pseudo random number will always correspond to a > specific deal. Incidentally I know that this is the way BigDeal is programmed, but it > is not the only way and in fact is an inferior way. > > A better way is to have each PRNG output control the transition from one deal to > the next so that each deal is a result of both the current seed and the last > previous deal. Then even the same seed reused will result in a different deal and > my analysis indicates that while 16 bits PRNG can safely be used to produce only > about 12 deals in a set the 32 bits PRNG will produce sets with at least 826000 > deals without any risk of statistically detectable correlation within a set or between > deals in different sets started with different seeds. > > Don't get me wrong. I am now using BigDeal myself after translating it to Delphi > and verifying that its properties are OK. However, I am not satisfied with humans > being able to produce "random" data on command so I have implemented a > different procedure than the one used in the original BigDeal implementation to > obtain all 160 bits for the starting seed. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 17 10:06:58 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:06:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D5CE532.7040507@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/02/2011 2:31, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > K86 > 95432 > A32 > Q3 > QT53 AJ7 > 6 AT8 > K974 JT5 > JT84 AK97 > 942 > KQJ7 > Q86 > 652 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1C (1) Pass > 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H > X (4) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. > > (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in > response to a later supplementary question > information that "negative" could be 15 hcp if > those hcp consisted of one king, four queens and > four jacks). > > (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or > semi-balanced, with the possibility of two > doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that > a heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. > > (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was > explained as a penalty double, not a negative > double. > > East-West did not make any defensive error, thus > scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps > against the datum. > > At the table the Director was not summoned. > > But if the Director had been summoned, would you as > Director apply a procedural penalty for East's > misinformation about West's negative double? AG : had it any influence on declarer's play ? I don't think so. So there isn't any need for score adjustment. (one would also need to check whether the double wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West either forgetting this or taking a gamble) From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 17 12:42:18 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 12:42:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > K86 > 95432 > A32 > Q3 > QT53 AJ7 > 6 AT8 > K974 JT5 > JT84 AK97 > 942 > KQJ7 > Q86 > 652 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1C (1) Pass > 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H > X (4) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. > > (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in > response to a later supplementary question > information that "negative" could be 15 hcp if > those hcp consisted of one king, four queens and > four jacks). > > (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or > semi-balanced, with the possibility of two > doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that > a heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. > > (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was > explained as a penalty double, not a negative > double. > > East-West did not make any defensive error, thus > scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps > against the datum. > > At the table the Director was not summoned. > > But if the Director had been summoned, would you as > Director apply a procedural penalty for East's > misinformation about West's negative double? No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. That much said, some pairs understand their obligations only if violating the obligations is penalized. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 17 13:07:27 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:07:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/02/2011 12:42, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum >> Dlr: East >> Vul: None >> >> K86 >> 95432 >> A32 >> Q3 >> QT53 AJ7 >> 6 AT8 >> K974 JT5 >> JT84 AK97 >> 942 >> KQJ7 >> Q86 >> 652 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- 1C (1) Pass >> 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H >> X (4) Pass Pass Pass >> >> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. >> >> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in >> response to a later supplementary question >> information that "negative" could be 15 hcp if >> those hcp consisted of one king, four queens and >> four jacks). >> >> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or >> semi-balanced, with the possibility of two >> doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that >> a heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. >> >> (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was >> explained as a penalty double, not a negative >> double. >> >> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus >> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps >> against the datum. >> >> At the table the Director was not summoned. >> >> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as >> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's >> misinformation about West's negative double? > No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. > > That much said, some pairs understand their > obligations only if violating the obligations > is penalized. > Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction of MI ? We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps was doubling for takeout, but : 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the double was for penalties ; perhaps West took a shot (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts ?) 2) perhaps this is a systemic error, rather than MI. The initial message speaks of "West's negative double", but doesn't state why it was deemed negative in the first place. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that E/W don't know their obligations : East gave his interpretation of West's bid when asked, and didn't fail to alert (the message says that the double shouldn't be alerted in those settings). Even if there was MI, there is absolutely nothing to lead us to the interpretation that it was voluntary. Best regards Alain From madam at civilradio.hu Thu Feb 17 13:59:55 2011 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:59:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Teams, played with screens Dlr: East Vul: none K8632 J3 J842 65 J Q54 Q976542 KT 95 AK73 984 AJT2 AT97 A8 QT6 KQ73 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. Explanations: (1) East to North: strong club West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts this as transfer to hearts. (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe 1NT meant the majors. (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both majors. All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings of the calls. Your decision? Thanks: Adam Magyar From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 17 14:11:30 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:11:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D5D1E82.8060000@skynet.be> Magyar ?d?m wrote: > > Teams, played with screens > Dlr: East > Vul: none > > K8632 > J3 > J842 > 65 > J Q54 > Q976542 KT > 95 AK73 > 984 AJT2 > AT97 > A8 > QT6 > KQ73 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) > pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) > Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass > > > EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. > > Explanations: > > (1) East to North: strong club > West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points > or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not > remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} > > (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 > BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. > > (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts this > as transfer to hearts. > > (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe > 1NT meant the majors. > > (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both > majors. > > All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. > > Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) > > At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, > stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings > of the calls. > > Your decision? > Basically, South was correctly informed about 1C, but chose to misinterpret. South then misbid, and North explained all Souths bids correctly. BUT: South MISexplained his own bidding to West. So let's see what West received: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass partner doubles, South bids 1NT, which should have been explained as "minors". He passes, and with correct info he ?may have bid 2H? I don't think he would, since East can be not strong. Now North chooses a minor and partner doubles - presumably to show strength. South now retreats to a major and North bids the other one. A wheel has clearly come off. West should see no reason to take away his partner's penalty double. The bad result by EW is more due to the inadvisable double over 2H and East's mistaken belief that this shows some points. I would not correct. > Thanks: > Adam Magyar > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 17 14:36:39 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:36:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: <4D5D1E82.8060000@skynet.be> References: <4D5D1E82.8060000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D5D2467.3080108@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/02/2011 14:11, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Magyar ?d?m wrote: >> Teams, played with screens >> Dlr: East >> Vul: none >> >> K8632 >> J3 >> J842 >> 65 >> J Q54 >> Q976542 KT >> 95 AK73 >> 984 AJT2 >> AT97 >> A8 >> QT6 >> KQ73 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) >> pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) >> Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass >> >> >> EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. >> >> Explanations: >> >> (1) East to North: strong club >> West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points >> or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not >> remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} >> >> (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 >> BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. >> >> (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts this >> as transfer to hearts. >> >> (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe >> 1NT meant the majors. >> >> (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both >> majors. >> >> All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. >> >> Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) >> >> At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, >> stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings >> of the calls. >> >> Your decision? >> > Basically, South was correctly informed about 1C, but chose to > misinterpret. South then misbid, and North explained all Souths bids > correctly. BUT: South MISexplained his own bidding to West. > So let's see what West received: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) > pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) > Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass > > partner doubles, South bids 1NT, which should have been explained as > "minors". He passes, and with correct info he ?may have bid 2H? I don't > think he would, since East can be not strong. > Now North chooses a minor and partner doubles - presumably to show > strength. South now retreats to a major and North bids the other one. > A wheel has clearly come off. West should see no reason to take away his > partner's penalty double. > The bad result by EW is more due to the inadvisable double over 2H and > East's mistaken belief that this shows some points. > I would not correct. > AG :also partly to the strange system that makes EW open 1C on any distribution provided they hold at least two aces and a king - not a strong club I'd say, and partly due to the strange belief that 2H over a natural 1NT overcall should be strong. Where do you want to be facing AJx - xx - AKx - Jxxxx ? And mainly to the differing explanations given by E/W. N/S aren't responsible for having different conceptions about their overcalls if they're given different explanations. And even worse : if a wheel really came loose after this, E/W would be held responsible (a similar case occurred to me in Belgian T4 championships). From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Feb 17 14:51:55 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:51:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/2/17 Magyar ?d?m : > > Teams, played with screens > Dlr: East > Vul: none > > ? ? ? ? ? K8632 > ? ? ? ? ? J3 > ? ? ? ? ? J842 > ? ? ? ? ? 65 > J ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Q54 > Q976542 ? ? ? ? ? KT > 95 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AK73 > 984 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AJT2 > ? ? ? ? ? AT97 > ? ? ? ? ? A8 > ? ? ? ? ? QT6 > ? ? ? ? ? KQ73 > > The bidding went: > > WEST ? ? ?NORTH ? ? EAST ? ? ?SOUTH > --- ? ? ? --- ? ? ? 1C(1) ? ? 1NT(2) > pass ? ? ?2D(3) ? ? Dbl ? ? ? 2H (4) > Dbl ? ? ? 2S(5) ? ? Dbl ? ? ? All Pass > > > EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. > > Explanations: > > (1) East to North: strong club > ? ?West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points > or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not > remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} > > (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 > BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. > > (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts this > as transfer to hearts. > > (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe > 1NT meant the majors. > > (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both > majors. > > All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. > > Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) > > At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, > stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings > of the calls. North and south both explained their own and their partners bids according to the explanations their screenmates gave for the 1C opening. They're hardly at fault for their opponents giving them different explanations. East explaine 1C as strong, which can't be right for a bid that might be made with 11 HCP. I'd rule result stands. > > Your decision? > > Thanks: > Adam Magyar > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 17 16:01:28 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:01:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1323908975.574078.1297954888816.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Magyar ?d?m wrote: > Teams, played with screens > Dlr: East > Vul: none > > K8632 > J3 > J842 > 65 > J Q54 > Q976542 KT > 95 AK73 > 984 AJT2 > AT97 > A8 > QT6 > KQ73 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) > pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) > Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass > > > EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. > > Explanations: > > (1) East to North: strong club > West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points > or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not > remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} > > (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 > BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. > > (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts > this > as transfer to hearts. > > (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe > 1NT meant the majors. > > (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both > majors. > > All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. > > Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) > > At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, > stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings > of the calls. > > Your decision? This got a bit messy. And it should not have happened. I am surprised that N/S had not noticed before the round that opponents play an unusual system, and then agreed on which of their defenses is on against this 1C opener. I'd check what the obligations were for that tournament. For example, did E/W have to pre-alert? Or were N/S supposed to review E/W's card before the round? Did E/W provide correctly filled in convention cards? Thomas Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 17 17:37:01 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:37:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: <1323908975.574078.1297954888816.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <1323908975.574078.1297954888816.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D5D4EAD.2020409@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/02/2011 16:01, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Magyar ?d?m wrote: >> Teams, played with screens >> Dlr: East >> Vul: none >> >> K8632 >> J3 >> J842 >> 65 >> J Q54 >> Q976542 KT >> 95 AK73 >> 984 AJT2 >> AT97 >> A8 >> QT6 >> KQ73 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) >> pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) >> Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass >> >> >> EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. >> >> Explanations: >> >> (1) East to North: strong club >> West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points >> or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not >> remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} >> >> (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 >> BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. >> >> (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts >> this >> as transfer to hearts. >> >> (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe >> 1NT meant the majors. >> >> (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both >> majors. >> >> All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. >> >> Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) >> >> At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, >> stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings >> of the calls. >> >> Your decision? > This got a bit messy. And it should not have happened. > > I am surprised that N/S had not noticed before the round that opponents > play an unusual system, and then agreed on which of their defenses is > on against this 1C opener. > > I'd check what the obligations were for that tournament. > For example, did E/W have to pre-alert? Or were N/S supposed > to review E/W's card before the round? Did E/W provide correctly > filled in convention cards? > AG : I'd say that the last two questions aren'tt essential. If, say, N/S saw it was a rather imprecise club and decided to use their "defense vs Polish", but North is told thereafter that 1C is strong, he has any right to believe this, and consider that : a) South will be told the same ; b) South will use their "defense vs Precision" ; c) the discrepancy is due to their having misread the card (vulnerability perhaps), or opponents having misfilled it, so East did well to correct the false impression. If it doesn't happen that way, it is mainly East's fault. Best regards Alain From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 17 18:00:12 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:00:12 -0800 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:59:55 +0100." Message-ID: <20110217170013.95B48A8C889@mailhub.irvine.com> > Teams, played with screens > Dlr: East > Vul: none > > K8632 > J3 > J842 > 65 > J Q54 > Q976542 KT > 95 AK73 > 984 AJT2 > AT97 > A8 > QT6 > KQ73 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) > pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) > Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass > > > EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. > > Explanations: > > (1) East to North: strong club > West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points > or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not > remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} > > (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 > BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. > > (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts this > as transfer to hearts. > > (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe > 1NT meant the majors. > > (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both > majors. > > All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. > > Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) > > At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, > stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings > of the calls. > > Your decision? > > Thanks: > Adam Magyar If I understand this correctly, West did not hear any of North's alerts or explanations, right? So from his point of view, South overcalled a strong notrump, North made a bid showing hearts, South accepted the transfer, and North bid spades, which is not itself a sign that anything is wrong---some players do bid that way with 4=5=x=x (especially those players for whom 1NT-2C-2D-2H would be Garbage or Crawling Stayman; with a better hand, you have to start with a transfer). Then East doubled 2S and South passed. I don't see any reason for West to disbelieve anything at this point (South *could* have decided to overcall 1NT with a singleton honor), but he was misinformed about the entire auction, and he *could* have pulled his partner's penalty double had he known that 2D didn't really show hearts. So whatever you think about East's bidding, West was taken out of the proceedings by being misled about the entire auction. So I think there's a case for adjusting. [Note: Whatever I say about how players bid over strong notrumps is from an American point of view. I don't know if bidding practices are the same in Hungary.] -- Adam Beneschan From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 17 22:27:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:27:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The beauty of Sid Meier's Civilisation: The Boardgame is that it is very faithful to the concepts of the original computer game. The problem with Sid Meier's Civilisation: The Boardgame is that it is very faithful to the concepts of the original computer game, hence takes a looooong time to finish. And the other problem with Sid Meier's Civilisation: The Boardgame is that one is not permitted to announce, "Release the Kraken!" This is a flaw also existing in the current EBU Announcement Regulation. Rather than merely announce the range of pard's 1NT opening "12 to 14" or "16 to 18", the reg should be amended to cause pard's penalty double to be announced with, "Release the Kraken!" Of course, the nattering nabobs of negativism have brainwashed the world's players into thinking that negative doubles, card-showing doubles, optional doubles, support doubles, action doubles, competitive doubles and snapdragon doubles are the greatest ideas since sliced bread. Hence the Kraken will remain pent in durance vile. Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum Dlr: East Vul: None K86 95432 A32 Q3 QT53 AJ7 6 AT8 K974 JT5 JT84 AK97 942 KQJ7 Q86 652 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hashmat Ali Richard Hills --- --- 1C (1) Pass 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H X (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response to a later supplementary question information that "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted of one king, four queens and four jacks). (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or semi-balanced, with the possibility of two doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative double. East-West did not make any defensive error, thus scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps against the datum. At the table the Director was not summoned. But if the Director had been summoned, would you as Director apply a procedural penalty for East's misinformation about West's negative double? Thomas Dehn: >No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. > >That much said, some pairs understand their >obligations only if violating the obligations is >penalized. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't >think so. So there isn't any need for score >adjustment. Richard Hills: Alain is correct in that there was no damage and hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction is not in any way linked to whether or not that infraction happened to damage the opponents. Alain Gottcheiner: >(one would also need to check whether the double >wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West >either forgetting this or taking a gamble) Gordon Rainsford: >What is their actual agreement? Richard Hills: Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards correspond to the classical distribution for a negative double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to use negative doubles. Alain Gottcheiner: >Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction >of MI ? > >We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps >was doubling for takeout, but: > >1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart >holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the >double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot >(reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) >..... Richard Hills: Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural 1NT bid in particular. Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or Law 74B1. Grattan Endicott, May 2004: >>+=+ An interesting thought. I have not seen, as far as >>I recall, a regulation in any competition that >>actually says >>"It is forbidden to play inferior bridge". David Stevenson, May 2004: >Well, it is time there was one, and it was explained to >my partners and team-mates. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Thu Feb 17 22:37:50 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:37:50 -0800 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:00:12 PST." <20110217170013.95B48A8C889@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <20110217213753.0EB77A8C885@mailhub.irvine.com> I wrote: > > Teams, played with screens > > Dlr: East > > Vul: none > > > > K8632 > > J3 > > J842 > > 65 > > J Q54 > > Q976542 KT > > 95 AK73 > > 984 AJT2 > > AT97 > > A8 > > QT6 > > KQ73 > > > > The bidding went: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) > > pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) > > Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass > If I understand this correctly, West did not hear any of North's > alerts or explanations, right? So from his point of view, South > overcalled a strong notrump, North made a bid showing hearts, South > accepted the transfer, and North bid spades, which is not itself a > sign that anything is wrong---some players do bid that way with > 4=5=x=x (especially those players for whom 1NT-2C-2D-2H would be > Garbage or Crawling Stayman; with a better hand, you have to start > with a transfer). Then East doubled 2S and South passed. I don't see > any reason for West to disbelieve anything at this point (South > *could* have decided to overcall 1NT with a singleton honor) Ummm, I overlooked the fact that South bid 2H over an intervening double, which he probably wouldn't have done with a singleton honor (or with a doubleton). That weakens my argument quite a bit. Nevertheless, I'm not completely comfortable with a ruling that says West should have bid 3H anyway because he should have known the wheels were off. West can certainly tell that something's wrong, but he can't tell what. (For all he knows, South didn't notice the double of 2D.) The misinformation has muddied the waters to the point where West can't tell what's right. IMHO the MI prevented West from pulling, and that should still be enough reason to adjust. -- Adam From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 18 00:33:06 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:33:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: <1323908975.574078.1297954888816.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <1323908975.574078.1297954888816.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D5DB032.5000604@aol.com> This apparently didn't puzzle anyone else so it may show my stupidity. But what does "5+ 2-1 points"mean? JE Am 17.02.2011 16:01, schrieb Thomas Dehn: > Magyar ?d?m wrote: >> Teams, played with screens >> Dlr: East >> Vul: none >> >> K8632 >> J3 >> J842 >> 65 >> J Q54 >> Q976542 KT >> 95 AK73 >> 984 AJT2 >> AT97 >> A8 >> QT6 >> KQ73 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) >> pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) >> Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass >> >> >> EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. >> >> Explanations: >> >> (1) East to North: strong club >> West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points >> or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not >> remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} >> >> (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 >> BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. >> >> (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts >> this >> as transfer to hearts. >> >> (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe >> 1NT meant the majors. >> >> (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both >> majors. >> >> All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. >> >> Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) >> >> At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, >> stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings >> of the calls. >> >> Your decision? > This got a bit messy. And it should not have happened. > > I am surprised that N/S had not noticed before the round that opponents > play an unusual system, and then agreed on which of their defenses is > on against this 1C opener. > > I'd check what the obligations were for that tournament. > For example, did E/W have to pre-alert? Or were N/S supposed > to review E/W's card before the round? Did E/W provide correctly > filled in convention cards? > > > Thomas > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From adam at irvine.com Fri Feb 18 00:43:57 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:43:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:33:06 +0100." <4D5DB032.5000604@aol.com> Message-ID: <20110217234400.97DFEA8C885@mailhub.irvine.com> > This apparently didn't puzzle anyone else so it may show my stupidity. = > > But what does "5+ 2-1 points"mean? JE A=2, K=1 -- Adam From info at honorsbridgeclub.org Thu Feb 17 22:41:07 2011 From: info at honorsbridgeclub.org (Honors Bridge Club) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:41:07 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Key card Message-ID: <4D5D95F3.9090401@honorsbridgeclub.org> This might be straight forward but we like to see what others think The uncontested auction: 1H - 1S 3C - 3H 4NT - 5D(1) 5H(2) - 6H (1) showing 1 or 4 Key Cards (2) After hesitation Responder had 1 Key Card and gave the correct response to the KC ask but the hesitation caused them to doubt themselves since they are playing 14-30 with other partners. Opener was hesitating since they had 4 spades and 6 hearts and were thinking if there was a way for them to sign off in 5S instead of in 5H (they were off 2 Key cards) The director was called after the 6H bid and when everyone acknowledged the hesitation instructed them to try and achieve a result. The slam made when the HK was onside. How would you rule? How would you rule if the slam had only 10% chance of success? -- Honors Bridge Club 133 East 58th Street - 14th Floor (212) 230-1230 www.honorsbridgeclub.org __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 5884 (20110217) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From adam at irvine.com Fri Feb 18 03:01:27 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:01:27 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Key card In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:41:07 EST." <4D5D95F3.9090401@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <20110218020130.E1D8CA8C884@mailhub.irvine.com> > This might be straight forward but we like to see what others think > > The uncontested auction: > > 1H - 1S > 3C - 3H > 4NT - 5D(1) > 5H(2) - 6H > > (1) showing 1 or 4 Key Cards > (2) After hesitation > > Responder had 1 Key Card and gave the correct response to the KC ask but > the hesitation caused them to doubt themselves since they are playing > 14-30 with other partners. > Opener was hesitating since they had 4 spades and 6 hearts and were > thinking if there was a way for them to sign off in 5S instead of in 5H > (they were off 2 Key cards) > The director was called after the 6H bid and when everyone acknowledged > the hesitation instructed them to try and achieve a result. > The slam made when the HK was onside. > How would you rule? Death penalty. This one is blatant. The reason for the hesitation is irrelevant. The Blackwood bid made opener captain, and if responder bids on to slam after opener hesitates and then stops below slam, responder's bid is illegal. (There might be some cases where responder has a void that might be an exception.) > How would you rule if the slam had only 10% chance of success? The definition of "damage" as used in the Laws doesn't depend on the slam's chance of success. 6H was illegal, the opponents should have been -680 (if vul.), but they were -1430 because of the illegal bid, hence they were damaged. So same ruling. Adjust to the score for 5 making 6, and then death penalty. -- Adam From blml at arcor.de Fri Feb 18 09:43:48 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:43:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum > > Dlr: East > Vul: None > > K86 > 95432 > A32 > Q3 > QT53 AJ7 > 6 AT8 > K974 JT5 > JT84 AK97 > 942 > KQJ7 > Q86 > 652 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Hashmat Ali Richard Hills > --- --- 1C (1) Pass > 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H > X (4) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. > > (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response > to a later supplementary question information that > "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted > of one king, four queens and four jacks). > > (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or > semi-balanced, with the possibility of two > doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a > heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. > > (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was > explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative > double. > > East-West did not make any defensive error, thus > scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps > against the datum. > > At the table the Director was not summoned. > > But if the Director had been summoned, would you as > Director apply a procedural penalty for East's > misinformation about West's negative double? > > Thomas Dehn: > > >No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. > > > >That much said, some pairs understand their > >obligations only if violating the obligations is > >penalized. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't > >think so. So there isn't any need for score > >adjustment. > > Richard Hills: > > Alain is correct in that there was no damage and > hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or > not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction > is not in any way linked to whether or not that > infraction happened to damage the opponents. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >(one would also need to check whether the double > >wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West > >either forgetting this or taking a gamble) > > Gordon Rainsford: > > >What is their actual agreement? > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would > misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards > correspond to the classical distribution for a negative > double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to > use negative doubles. > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction > >of MI ? > > > >We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps > >was doubling for takeout, but: > > > >1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart > >holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the > >double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot > >(reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) > >..... > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What > misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a > documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and > a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural > 1NT bid in particular. > > Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll > the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to > Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three > suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and > therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or > Law 74B1. It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such as hands holding a singleton. That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this is a penalty double" is not sufficient. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 18 10:14:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:14:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] not precision = standard? In-Reply-To: <20110217170013.95B48A8C889@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110217170013.95B48A8C889@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D5E387A.9040107@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/02/2011 18:00, Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > >> Teams, played with screens >> Dlr: East >> Vul: none >> >> K8632 >> J3 >> J842 >> 65 >> J Q54 >> Q976542 KT >> 95 AK73 >> 984 AJT2 >> AT97 >> A8 >> QT6 >> KQ73 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- --- 1C(1) 1NT(2) >> pass 2D(3) Dbl 2H (4) >> Dbl 2S(5) Dbl All Pass >> >> >> EW plays a home-grown, strong-club based system. >> >> Explanations: >> >> (1) East to North: strong club >> West alerts, South asks West: "Precision?" West says "No, 5+ 2-1 points >> or at least 7 1/2 playing tricks, (any distribution)." {South does not >> remember that 'any distribution' was told to her} >> >> (2) South thinks if it is not precision, it is standard, so bids 1NT 15-18 >> BAL. North alerts this, according to their system, as showing minors. >> >> (3) North chooses from the minors, and alerts 2D that way. South alerts this >> as transfer to hearts. >> >> (4) South alerts 2H as accepting the transfer. North tells East that maybe >> 1NT meant the majors. >> >> (5) North picks his longer major. South alerts this as weak with both >> majors. >> >> All EW's doubles were penalty doubles. >> >> Result: +1, +570 to NS (other table 3H E =, -140) >> >> At the end of the play, EW call the TD, and complain about the bidding, >> stating that they would reach 3H, if they were informed about the meanings >> of the calls. >> >> Your decision? >> >> Thanks: >> Adam Magyar > If I understand this correctly, West did not hear any of North's > alerts or explanations, right? So from his point of view, South > overcalled a strong notrump, North made a bid showing hearts, South > accepted the transfer, and North bid spades, which is not itself a > sign that anything is wrong---some players do bid that way with > 4=5=x=x (especially those players for whom 1NT-2C-2D-2H would be > Garbage or Crawling Stayman; with a better hand, you have to start > with a transfer). Then East doubled 2S and South passed. I don't see > any reason for West to disbelieve anything at this point (South > *could* have decided to overcall 1NT with a singleton honor), but he > was misinformed about the entire auction, and he *could* have pulled > his partner's penalty double had he known that 2D didn't really show > hearts. So whatever you think about East's bidding, West was taken > out of the proceedings by being misled about the entire auction. AG : indeed, but North's false bid (correctly explained BTW) was induced by East's false explanation, so how could West tell you that it's his opponents' fault ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 18 10:25:26 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:25:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D5E3B06.4010408@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/02/2011 22:27, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The beauty of Sid Meier's Civilisation: The Boardgame > is that it is very faithful to the concepts of the > original computer game. The problem with Sid Meier's > Civilisation: The Boardgame is that it is very > faithful to the concepts of the original computer > game, hence takes a looooong time to finish. AG : Please notice that a new version has just been released, albeit without any Kraken in it, and has a very high note on BGM, which was not the case of the old one. > This is a flaw also existing in the current EBU > Announcement Regulation. Rather than merely announce > the range of pard's 1NT opening "12 to 14" or "16 to > 18", the reg should be amended to cause pard's penalty > double to be announced with, "Release the Kraken!" > AG : remains me of an opponent whose English was unsettled, and explained "punishment" instead of "penalties". It was. > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would > misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards > correspond to the classical distribution for a negative > double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to > use negative doubles. AG : and because opener happened to hold 5 spades in his opening suit, they're obviously playing 5-card majors. Heard that recently from a not-particularly-prolific Belgian TD. Best regards Alain From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Feb 18 10:29:48 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:29:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09. arcor-online.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <201102180929.p1I9ToP8009648@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 07:43 PM 18/02/2011, you wrote: >richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum > > > > Dlr: East > > Vul: None > > > > K86 > > 95432 > > A32 > > Q3 > > QT53 AJ7 > > 6 AT8 > > K974 JT5 > > JT84 AK97 > > 942 > > KQJ7 > > Q86 > > 652 > > > > The bidding went: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Hashmat Ali Richard Hills > > --- --- 1C (1) Pass > > 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H > > X (4) Pass Pass Pass > > > > (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. > > > > (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response > > to a later supplementary question information that > > "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted > > of one king, four queens and four jacks). > > > > (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or > > semi-balanced, with the possibility of two > > doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a > > heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. > > > > (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was > > explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative > > double. > > > > East-West did not make any defensive error, thus > > scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps > > against the datum. > > > > At the table the Director was not summoned. > > > > But if the Director had been summoned, would you as > > Director apply a procedural penalty for East's > > misinformation about West's negative double? > > > > Thomas Dehn: > > > > >No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. > > > > > >That much said, some pairs understand their > > >obligations only if violating the obligations is > > >penalized. > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > >AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't > > >think so. So there isn't any need for score > > >adjustment. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Alain is correct in that there was no damage and > > hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or > > not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction > > is not in any way linked to whether or not that > > infraction happened to damage the opponents. > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > >(one would also need to check whether the double > > >wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West > > >either forgetting this or taking a gamble) > > > > Gordon Rainsford: > > > > >What is their actual agreement? > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would > > misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards > > correspond to the classical distribution for a negative > > double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to > > use negative doubles. > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > >Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction > > >of MI ? > > > > > >We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps > > >was doubling for takeout, but: > > > > > >1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart > > >holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the > > >double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot > > >(reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) > > >..... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What > > misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a > > documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and > > a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural > > 1NT bid in particular. > > > > Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll > > the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to > > Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three > > suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and > > therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or > > Law 74B1. > >It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding >that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such >as hands holding a singleton. > >That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this >is a penalty double" is not sufficient. > > >Thomas Tony (1c worth): No doubt Thomas is correct in Law. But to transform the original problem: Partner opens 1NT (strong), RHO interposes 2H, so with the West hand I might double, which by my system means penalty, but really means: partner do something sensible, you're in the hot seat. So I don't expect partner to explain : "penalty, but does not promise a heart trick, in fact he has been known to do it with a singleton heart" Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 18 10:35:52 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:35:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D5E3D78.3080202@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/02/2011 9:43, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum >> >> Dlr: East >> Vul: None >> >> K86 >> 95432 >> A32 >> Q3 >> QT53 AJ7 >> 6 AT8 >> K974 JT5 >> JT84 AK97 >> 942 >> KQJ7 >> Q86 >> 652 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills >> --- --- 1C (1) Pass >> 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H >> X (4) Pass Pass Pass >> >> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. >> >> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response >> to a later supplementary question information that >> "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted >> of one king, four queens and four jacks). >> >> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or >> semi-balanced, with the possibility of two >> doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a >> heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. >> >> (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was >> explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative >> double. >> >> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus >> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps >> against the datum. >> >> At the table the Director was not summoned. >> >> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as >> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's >> misinformation about West's negative double? >> >> Thomas Dehn: >> >>> No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. >>> >>> That much said, some pairs understand their >>> obligations only if violating the obligations is >>> penalized. >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't >>> think so. So there isn't any need for score >>> adjustment. >> Richard Hills: >> >> Alain is correct in that there was no damage and >> hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or >> not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction >> is not in any way linked to whether or not that >> infraction happened to damage the opponents. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> (one would also need to check whether the double >>> wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West >>> either forgetting this or taking a gamble) >> Gordon Rainsford: >> >>> What is their actual agreement? >> Richard Hills: >> >> Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would >> misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards >> correspond to the classical distribution for a negative >> double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to >> use negative doubles. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction >>> of MI ? >>> >>> We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps >>> was doubling for takeout, but: >>> >>> 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart >>> holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the >>> double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot >>> (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) >>> ..... >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What >> misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a >> documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and >> a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural >> 1NT bid in particular. >> >> Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll >> the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to >> Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three >> suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and >> therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or >> Law 74B1. > It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding > that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such > as hands holding a singleton. > > That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this is a penalty double" is not sufficient. > AG : good point. One of my CCs contained, in the pre-alert section, the sentence "occasional speculative doubles". However, when exactly a double can be considered speculative isn't told by TFLB ; if your agreement is to double whenever you feel able to extract a substantial penalty, and that can be a singleton because of the preceding bidding (e.g. partner has to hold something in the suit), that's not an agreement. That's bridge logic. It merely happens that this partnership has more opportunities to do it. A live example : 2D (2S) Dbl 3S (Dbl) 2D was Multi. I doubled on a singleton. Notice that partner's double of 2S was for penalties. Should partner have alerted ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 18 10:59:35 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:59:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201102180929.p1I9ToP8009648@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <201102180929.p1I9ToP8009648@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D5E4307.2090208@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/02/2011 10:29, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 07:43 PM 18/02/2011, you wrote: >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum >>> >>> Dlr: East >>> Vul: None >>> >>> K86 >>> 95432 >>> A32 >>> Q3 >>> QT53 AJ7 >>> 6 AT8 >>> K974 JT5 >>> JT84 AK97 >>> 942 >>> KQJ7 >>> Q86 >>> 652 >>> >>> The bidding went: >>> >>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills >>> --- --- 1C (1) Pass >>> 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H >>> X (4) Pass Pass Pass >>> >>> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. >>> >>> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response >>> to a later supplementary question information that >>> "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted >>> of one king, four queens and four jacks). >>> >>> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or >>> semi-balanced, with the possibility of two >>> doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a >>> heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. >>> >>> (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was >>> explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative >>> double. >>> >>> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus >>> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps >>> against the datum. >>> >>> At the table the Director was not summoned. >>> >>> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as >>> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's >>> misinformation about West's negative double? >>> >>> Thomas Dehn: >>> >>>> No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. >>>> >>>> That much said, some pairs understand their >>>> obligations only if violating the obligations is >>>> penalized. >>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>> >>>> AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't >>>> think so. So there isn't any need for score >>>> adjustment. >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Alain is correct in that there was no damage and >>> hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or >>> not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction >>> is not in any way linked to whether or not that >>> infraction happened to damage the opponents. >>> >>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>> >>>> (one would also need to check whether the double >>>> wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West >>>> either forgetting this or taking a gamble) >>> Gordon Rainsford: >>> >>>> What is their actual agreement? >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would >>> misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards >>> correspond to the classical distribution for a negative >>> double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to >>> use negative doubles. >>> >>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>> >>>> Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction >>>> of MI ? >>>> >>>> We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps >>>> was doubling for takeout, but: >>>> >>>> 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart >>>> holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the >>>> double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot >>>> (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) >>>> ..... >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What >>> misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a >>> documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and >>> a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural >>> 1NT bid in particular. >>> >>> Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll >>> the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to >>> Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three >>> suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and >>> therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or >>> Law 74B1. >> It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding >> that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such >> as hands holding a singleton. >> >> That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this >> is a penalty double" is not sufficient. >> >> >> Thomas > Tony (1c worth): > No doubt Thomas is correct in Law. But to transform the original > problem: Partner opens 1NT (strong), RHO interposes 2H, so > with the West hand I might double, which by my system means > penalty, but really means: partner do something sensible, you're > in the hot seat. So I don't expect partner to explain : "penalty, but > does not promise a heart trick, in fact he has been known to > do it with a singleton heart" AG : You don't, but they're telling us that it's precisely what they play. So, the way *you* play it is irrelevant. You're falling into the trap of interpreting the bid from the holding, which shouldn't be done, rather than from the CC, system notes, and partnership history, which should. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 18 11:50:56 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:50:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Key card In-Reply-To: <20110218020130.E1D8CA8C884@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110218020130.E1D8CA8C884@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D5E4F10.7090605@skynet.be> I strongly disagree with Adam. I believe the death penalty is inhuman and should be abolished. Life imprisonment should be enough. Herman. Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> This might be straight forward but we like to see what others think >> >> The uncontested auction: >> >> 1H - 1S >> 3C - 3H >> 4NT - 5D(1) >> 5H(2) - 6H >> >> (1) showing 1 or 4 Key Cards >> (2) After hesitation >> >> Responder had 1 Key Card and gave the correct response to the KC ask but >> the hesitation caused them to doubt themselves since they are playing >> 14-30 with other partners. >> Opener was hesitating since they had 4 spades and 6 hearts and were >> thinking if there was a way for them to sign off in 5S instead of in 5H >> (they were off 2 Key cards) >> The director was called after the 6H bid and when everyone acknowledged >> the hesitation instructed them to try and achieve a result. >> The slam made when the HK was onside. >> How would you rule? > > Death penalty. This one is blatant. The reason for the hesitation is > irrelevant. The Blackwood bid made opener captain, and if responder > bids on to slam after opener hesitates and then stops below slam, > responder's bid is illegal. (There might be some cases where > responder has a void that might be an exception.) > > >> How would you rule if the slam had only 10% chance of success? > > The definition of "damage" as used in the Laws doesn't depend on the > slam's chance of success. 6H was illegal, the opponents should have > been -680 (if vul.), but they were -1430 because of the illegal bid, > hence they were damaged. So same ruling. Adjust to the score for 5 > making 6, and then death penalty. > > -- Adam > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3450 - Release Date: 02/17/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 18 12:19:39 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:19:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Hesitation Key card In-Reply-To: <4D5E4F10.7090605@skynet.be> References: <20110218020130.E1D8CA8C884@mailhub.irvine.com> <4D5E4F10.7090605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D5E55CB.7080400@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/02/2011 11:50, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I strongly disagree with Adam. > I believe the death penalty is inhuman and should be abolished. > Life imprisonment should be enough. Well, if you are thrown away from (the) bridge ... From blml at arcor.de Fri Feb 18 13:51:20 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:51:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D5E3D78.3080202@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D5E3D78.3080202@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2020800798.621696.1298033480592.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 18/02/2011 9:43, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum > >> > >> Dlr: East > >> Vul: None > >> > >> K86 > >> 95432 > >> A32 > >> Q3 > >> QT53 AJ7 > >> 6 AT8 > >> K974 JT5 > >> JT84 AK97 > >> 942 > >> KQJ7 > >> Q86 > >> 652 > >> > >> The bidding went: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills > >> --- --- 1C (1) Pass > >> 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H > >> X (4) Pass Pass Pass > >> > >> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. > >> > >> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response > >> to a later supplementary question information that > >> "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted > >> of one king, four queens and four jacks). > >> > >> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or > >> semi-balanced, with the possibility of two > >> doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a > >> heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. > >> > >> (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was > >> explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative > >> double. > >> > >> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus > >> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps > >> against the datum. > >> > >> At the table the Director was not summoned. > >> > >> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as > >> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's > >> misinformation about West's negative double? > >> > >> Thomas Dehn: > >> > >>> No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. > >>> > >>> That much said, some pairs understand their > >>> obligations only if violating the obligations is > >>> penalized. > >> Alain Gottcheiner: > >> > >>> AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't > >>> think so. So there isn't any need for score > >>> adjustment. > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Alain is correct in that there was no damage and > >> hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or > >> not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction > >> is not in any way linked to whether or not that > >> infraction happened to damage the opponents. > >> > >> Alain Gottcheiner: > >> > >>> (one would also need to check whether the double > >>> wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West > >>> either forgetting this or taking a gamble) > >> Gordon Rainsford: > >> > >>> What is their actual agreement? > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would > >> misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards > >> correspond to the classical distribution for a negative > >> double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to > >> use negative doubles. > >> > >> Alain Gottcheiner: > >> > >>> Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction > >>> of MI ? > >>> > >>> We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps > >>> was doubling for takeout, but: > >>> > >>> 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart > >>> holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the > >>> double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot > >>> (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) > >>> ..... > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What > >> misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a > >> documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and > >> a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural > >> 1NT bid in particular. > >> > >> Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll > >> the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to > >> Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three > >> suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and > >> therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or > >> Law 74B1. > > It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding > > that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such > > as hands holding a singleton. > > > > That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this is a > penalty double" is not sufficient. > > > AG : good point. One of my CCs contained, in the pre-alert section, the > sentence "occasional speculative doubles". > > However, when exactly a double can be considered speculative isn't told > by TFLB ; if your agreement is to double whenever you feel able to > extract a substantial penalty, and that can be a singleton because of > the preceding bidding (e.g. partner has to hold something in the suit), > that's not an agreement. That's bridge logic. It merely happens that > this partnership has more opportunities to do it. > > A live example : 2D (2S) Dbl 3S (Dbl) > 2D was Multi. > I doubled on a singleton. > Notice that partner's double of 2S was for penalties. > > Should partner have alerted ? Well, that would depend on the local alert regulations, but generally no. In Alain's example, partner had already doubled 2S for penalties. Thus doubling 3S for penalties with a singleton is not unexpected, explaining this double as a "penalty double" without any additional statement on the possibility of a singleton looks ok. In the original auction in this thread, as provided by Richard, many players would expect that a "penalty double" will only very rarely be made on a doubleton, and virtually never on a singleton or a void. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 18 14:42:19 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:42:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2020800798.621696.1298033480592.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <4D5E3D78.3080202@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <2020800798.621696.1298033480592.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D5E773B.6050107@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/02/2011 13:51, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 18/02/2011 9:43, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum >>>> >>>> Dlr: East >>>> Vul: None >>>> >>>> K86 >>>> 95432 >>>> A32 >>>> Q3 >>>> QT53 AJ7 >>>> 6 AT8 >>>> K974 JT5 >>>> JT84 AK97 >>>> 942 >>>> KQJ7 >>>> Q86 >>>> 652 >>>> >>>> The bidding went: >>>> >>>> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills >>>> --- --- 1C (1) Pass >>>> 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H >>>> X (4) Pass Pass Pass >>>> >>>> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. >>>> >>>> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response >>>> to a later supplementary question information that >>>> "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted >>>> of one king, four queens and four jacks). >>>> >>>> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or >>>> semi-balanced, with the possibility of two >>>> doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a >>>> heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. >>>> >>>> (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was >>>> explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative >>>> double. >>>> >>>> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus >>>> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps >>>> against the datum. >>>> >>>> At the table the Director was not summoned. >>>> >>>> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as >>>> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's >>>> misinformation about West's negative double? >>>> >>>> Thomas Dehn: >>>> >>>>> No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. >>>>> >>>>> That much said, some pairs understand their >>>>> obligations only if violating the obligations is >>>>> penalized. >>>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>> >>>>> AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't >>>>> think so. So there isn't any need for score >>>>> adjustment. >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Alain is correct in that there was no damage and >>>> hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or >>>> not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction >>>> is not in any way linked to whether or not that >>>> infraction happened to damage the opponents. >>>> >>>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>> >>>>> (one would also need to check whether the double >>>>> wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West >>>>> either forgetting this or taking a gamble) >>>> Gordon Rainsford: >>>> >>>>> What is their actual agreement? >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would >>>> misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards >>>> correspond to the classical distribution for a negative >>>> double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to >>>> use negative doubles. >>>> >>>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>> >>>>> Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction >>>>> of MI ? >>>>> >>>>> We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps >>>>> was doubling for takeout, but: >>>>> >>>>> 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart >>>>> holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the >>>>> double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot >>>>> (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) >>>>> ..... >>>> Richard Hills: >>>> >>>> Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What >>>> misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a >>>> documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and >>>> a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural >>>> 1NT bid in particular. >>>> >>>> Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll >>>> the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to >>>> Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three >>>> suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and >>>> therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or >>>> Law 74B1. >>> It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding >>> that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such >>> as hands holding a singleton. >>> >>> That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this is a >> penalty double" is not sufficient. >> AG : good point. One of my CCs contained, in the pre-alert section, the >> sentence "occasional speculative doubles". >> >> However, when exactly a double can be considered speculative isn't told >> by TFLB ; if your agreement is to double whenever you feel able to >> extract a substantial penalty, and that can be a singleton because of >> the preceding bidding (e.g. partner has to hold something in the suit), >> that's not an agreement. That's bridge logic. It merely happens that >> this partnership has more opportunities to do it. >> >> A live example : 2D (2S) Dbl 3S (Dbl) >> 2D was Multi. >> I doubled on a singleton. >> Notice that partner's double of 2S was for penalties. >> >> Should partner have alerted ? > > Well, that would depend on the local alert regulations, but generally no. > In Alain's example, partner had already doubled 2S for penalties. > Thus doubling 3S for penalties with a singleton is not unexpected, explaining > this double as a "penalty double" without any additional statement > on the possibility of a singleton looks ok. > > In the original auction in this thread, as provided by Richard, many players would expect > that a "penalty double" will only very rarely be made on a doubleton, > and virtually never on a singleton or a void. > AG : in a long post three years ago, I explained how I became aware that they weree playing in a 5-2 fit with trumps 5-1 and only moderate assets, based on my partner having shown "some 5-card major" and the other being impossible. Whence I doubled on a singleton. Opponents wouldn't expect a penalty double to be made on a singleton. I would seldom made any (surely less often than Richard, at least) Should partner have explained that I could hold a singleton ? Of course, declarer made one more undertrick through misplacmeent uf trump length. Would you have mentioned MI ? In fact, this is the same as the current case : doubling on total values, with the help of partner's bid. What's wrong with this being a non-trump penalty double ? From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Feb 18 15:15:02 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:15:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D5E773B.6050107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D5E3D78.3080202@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <2020800798.621696.1298033480592.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4D5E773B.6050107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2011/2/18 Alain Gottcheiner : > Le 18/02/2011 13:51, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner ?wrote: >>> Le 18/02/2011 9:43, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>>> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum >>>>> >>>>> Dlr: East >>>>> Vul: None >>>>> >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?K86 >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?95432 >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?A32 >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Q3 >>>>> QT53 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AJ7 >>>>> 6 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AT8 >>>>> K974 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?JT5 >>>>> JT84 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?AK97 >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?942 >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQJ7 >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Q86 >>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?652 >>>>> >>>>> The bidding went: >>>>> >>>>> WEST ? ? ? ? ? ?NORTH ? ? ? ? ?EAST ? ? ? ? ? ?SOUTH >>>>> Hashmat Ali ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Richard Hills >>>>> --- ? ? ? ? ? ? --- ? ? ? ? ? ?1C (1) ? ? ? ? ?Pass >>>>> 1D (2) ? ? ? ? ?1H ? ? ? ? ? ? 1NT(3) ? ? ? ? ?2H >>>>> X ?(4) ? ? ? ? ?Pass ? ? ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ? ? ?Pass >>>>> >>>>> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. >>>>> >>>>> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response >>>>> ? ? ? to a later supplementary question information that >>>>> ? ? ? "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted >>>>> ? ? ? of one king, four queens and four jacks). >>>>> >>>>> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or >>>>> ? ? ? semi-balanced, with the possibility of two >>>>> ? ? ? doubletons or a singleton. ?Also explained that a >>>>> ? ? ? heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. >>>>> >>>>> (4) Self-alerting. ?On enquiry this double was >>>>> ? ? ? explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative >>>>> ? ? ? double. >>>>> >>>>> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus >>>>> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps >>>>> against the datum. >>>>> >>>>> At the table the Director was not summoned. >>>>> >>>>> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as >>>>> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's >>>>> misinformation about West's negative double? >>>>> >>>>> Thomas Dehn: >>>>> >>>>>> No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. >>>>>> >>>>>> That much said, some pairs understand their >>>>>> obligations only if violating the obligations is >>>>>> penalized. >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>>> >>>>>> AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't >>>>>> think so. So there isn't any need for score >>>>>> adjustment. >>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>> >>>>> Alain is correct in that there was no damage and >>>>> hence no cause for score adjustment. ?But whether or >>>>> not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction >>>>> is not in any way linked to whether or not that >>>>> infraction happened to damage the opponents. >>>>> >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>>> >>>>>> (one would also need to check whether the double >>>>>> wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West >>>>>> either forgetting this or taking a gamble) >>>>> Gordon Rainsford: >>>>> >>>>>> What is their actual agreement? >>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. ?A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would >>>>> misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards >>>>> correspond to the classical distribution for a negative >>>>> double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to >>>>> use negative doubles. >>>>> >>>>> Alain Gottcheiner: >>>>> >>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction >>>>>> of MI ? >>>>>> >>>>>> We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps >>>>>> was doubling for takeout, but: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart >>>>>> holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the >>>>>> double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot >>>>>> (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) >>>>>> ..... >>>>> Richard Hills: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, my original post contained a trick question. ?What >>>>> misinformation? ?The Ali-Hills partnership have a >>>>> documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and >>>>> a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural >>>>> 1NT bid in particular. >>>>> >>>>> Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll >>>>> the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to >>>>> Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three >>>>> suits. ?Some might argue that was bad bridge, and >>>>> therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or >>>>> Law 74B1. >>>> It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding >>>> that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such >>>> as hands holding a singleton. >>>> >>>> That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this is a >>> penalty double" is not sufficient. >>> AG : good point. One of my CCs contained, in the pre-alert section, the >>> sentence "occasional speculative doubles". >>> >>> However, when exactly a double can be considered speculative isn't told >>> by TFLB ; if your agreement is to double whenever you feel able to >>> extract a substantial penalty, and that can be a singleton because of >>> the preceding bidding (e.g. partner has to hold something in the suit), >>> that's not an agreement. That's bridge logic. It merely happens that >>> this partnership has more opportunities to do it. >>> >>> A live example : 2D ?(2S) ?Dbl ?3S (Dbl) >>> 2D was Multi. >>> I doubled on a singleton. >>> Notice that partner's double of 2S was for penalties. >>> >>> Should partner have alerted ? >> >> Well, that would depend on the local alert regulations, but generally no. >> In Alain's example, partner had already doubled 2S for penalties. >> Thus doubling 3S for penalties with a singleton is not unexpected, explaining >> this double as a "penalty double" without any additional statement >> on the possibility of a singleton looks ok. >> >> In the original auction in this thread, as provided by Richard, many players would expect >> that a "penalty double" will only very rarely be made on a doubleton, >> and virtually never on a singleton or a void. >> > AG : in a long post three years ago, I explained how I became aware that > they weree playing in a 5-2 fit with trumps 5-1 and only moderate > assets, based on my partner having shown "some 5-card major" and the > other being impossible. > Whence I doubled on a singleton. > > Opponents wouldn't expect a penalty double to be made on a singleton. > I would seldom made any (surely less often than Richard, at least) > Should partner have explained that I could hold a singleton ? > Of course, declarer made one more undertrick through misplacmeent uf > trump length. > Would you have mentioned MI ? > > In fact, this is the same as the current case : doubling on total > values, with the help of partner's bid. > What's wrong with this being a non-trump penalty double ? Nothing at all. There's nowhere in the laws that a penalty double need to be based on trump length and/or tricks. A penalty double is a double you make when you believe you can achive your highest/safest plus score by defending the contract your opponents just have bid. Of course, normally this is done at low levels with a number of trump tricks. But not always. Some times you just believe opps is in a bad spot for them. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 18 15:25:12 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:25:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:43 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum >> >> Dlr: East >> Vul: None >> >> K86 >> 95432 >> A32 >> Q3 >> QT53 AJ7 >> 6 AT8 >> K974 JT5 >> JT84 AK97 >> 942 >> KQJ7 >> Q86 >> 652 >> >> The bidding went: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills >> --- --- 1C (1) Pass >> 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H >> X (4) Pass Pass Pass >> >> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. >> >> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response >> to a later supplementary question information that >> "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted >> of one king, four queens and four jacks). >> >> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or >> semi-balanced, with the possibility of two >> doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a >> heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. >> >> (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was >> explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative >> double. >> >> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus >> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps >> against the datum. >> >> At the table the Director was not summoned. >> >> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as >> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's >> misinformation about West's negative double? >> >> Thomas Dehn: >> >>> No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. >>> >>> That much said, some pairs understand their >>> obligations only if violating the obligations is >>> penalized. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't >>> think so. So there isn't any need for score >>> adjustment. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Alain is correct in that there was no damage and >> hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or >> not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction >> is not in any way linked to whether or not that >> infraction happened to damage the opponents. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> (one would also need to check whether the double >>> wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West >>> either forgetting this or taking a gamble) >> >> Gordon Rainsford: >> >>> What is their actual agreement? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would >> misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards >> correspond to the classical distribution for a negative >> double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to >> use negative doubles. >> >> Alain Gottcheiner: >> >>> Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction >>> of MI ? >>> >>> We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps >>> was doubling for takeout, but: >>> >>> 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart >>> holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the >>> double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot >>> (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) >>> ..... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What >> misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a >> documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and >> a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural >> 1NT bid in particular. >> >> Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll >> the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to >> Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three >> suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and >> therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or >> Law 74B1. > > It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding > that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such > as hands holding a singleton. > > That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this > is a penalty double" is not sufficient. It sounds to me, OTOH, like Ali-Hills have a partnerhip understanding that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right to defend the opponents' contract doubled. This has nothing to do with whether they hold a singleton, or some other feature that others might consider "unusual", It's the definition of a penalty double. What is there to additionally disclose? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 18 15:39:17 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:39:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <201102180929.p1I9ToP8009648@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <201102180929.p1I9ToP8009648@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 07:43 PM 18/02/2011, you wrote: > >> It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding >> that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such >> as hands holding a singleton. >> >> That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this >> is a penalty double" is not sufficient. >> >> Thomas > > Tony (1c worth): > No doubt Thomas is correct in Law. But to transform the original > problem: Partner opens 1NT (strong), RHO interposes 2H, so > with the West hand I might double, which by my system means > penalty, but really means: partner do something sensible, you're > in the hot seat. So I don't expect partner to explain : "penalty, but > does not promise a heart trick, in fact he has been known to > do it with a singleton heart" This is nonsense. Either your double means "penalty" (a "penalty double") or it means "partner do something sensible" (an "action double" around here; local terminology may vary). It can't mean one thing "by [your] system" and "really" mean something else, if only due to the principle of law that makes explicit and implicit understandings equivalent. If it "really" means "partner do something sensible, you're in the hot seat", you should expect partner to explain, "It asks me to do something sensible, as I am in the hot seat." WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 19 05:28:27 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:28:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D5E773B.6050107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D5E3D78.3080202@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <2020800798.621696.1298033480592.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4D5E773B.6050107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: "Alain Gottcheiner" >AG : in a long post three years ago, I explained how I became aware that >they weree playing in a 5-2 fit with trumps 5-1 and only moderate >assets, based on my partner having shown "some 5-card major" and the >other being impossible. >Whence I doubled on a singleton. >Opponents wouldn't expect a penalty double to be made on a singleton. >I would seldom made any (surely less often than Richard, at least) >Should partner have explained that I could hold a singleton ? In this situation, you are doubling based on an inference from the bidding that partner will leave the double in with normal values given what he has already shown, and the contract will go down; that is the definition of a penalty double. If you misunderstood the bidding and partner has five cards in the wrong major, he will leave your double in with his doubleton trump and the opponents will make an overtrick in their ten-card fit. In contrast, a double made with a singleton with the expectation that partner will pull it with a normal hand and two trumps is optional, not penalty, and would need to be explained as such. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Feb 19 19:30:49 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:30:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] curious Message-ID: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> I often play at a club in the French province. The level of play is not very high and the knowledge of the laws and modern conventions is nil. Most of the players play a simple better minor system. After opponent's opening of 1 diam. they bid 2 diam. to show 5/5 in the majors. But after opponent's opening of 1 club they bid 2 clubs as natural with clubs and 2 diamonds to show the 5/5. This leads to occasional club contracts with a guaranteed horrible break in trumps and to not reaching diamond contracts with 9 or 10 diamonds between them. I have never encountered this before although I have played bridge in at least 10 countries and at least 30 clubs. Have any blmlers encountered this? Trying to explain the illogic of their bids over 1 club is hopeless. They nod politely and continue to use their familiar convention. (Often with disastrous results.) Ciao, JE From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Sat Feb 19 22:25:19 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:25:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] curious In-Reply-To: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> References: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> Message-ID: <000c01cbd07b$82d40940$887c1bc0$@com> I have never encountered such a convention in the "French province" where I play bridge (since 40 years), not as a player nor as a TD, but I have seen so much inefficient and unknown things mostly played by beginners. Players occasionally ask questions about their gadgets but they want a positive answer. No matter what you say as an "expert", they go on using them. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of scientific studies analyzing bridge systems and conventions. Laval Du Breuil Quebec -----Message d'origine----- De?: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de Jeff Easterson Envoy??: 19 f?vrier 2011 13:31 ??: Bridge Laws Mailing List Objet?: [BLML] curious I often play at a club in the French province. The level of play is not very high and the knowledge of the laws and modern conventions is nil. Most of the players play a simple better minor system. After opponent's opening of 1 diam. they bid 2 diam. to show 5/5 in the majors. But after opponent's opening of 1 club they bid 2 clubs as natural with clubs and 2 diamonds to show the 5/5. This leads to occasional club contracts with a guaranteed horrible break in trumps and to not reaching diamond contracts with 9 or 10 diamonds between them. I have never encountered this before although I have played bridge in at least 10 countries and at least 30 clubs. Have any blmlers encountered this? Trying to explain the illogic of their bids over 1 club is hopeless. They nod politely and continue to use their familiar convention. (Often with disastrous results.) Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Sat Feb 19 22:44:34 2011 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:44:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] curious References: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> Message-ID: > But after opponent's opening of 1 club they bid 2 clubs as natural with > clubs and 2 diamonds to show the 5/5. The entire Poland plays this way (although 1C here is hardly ever natural) And I believe the situation is more or less the same in Russia, Ukraine etc. Although 2D overcall is Wilkosz so it shows any 5+-5+ with at least one major. > This leads to occasional club > contracts with a guaranteed horrible break in trumps and to not reaching > diamond contracts with 9 or 10 diamonds between them. Why would it be? The 1D overcall is still available over 2C Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------------------- Ten telefon chcesz miec! Mozesz go wygrac! Sprawdz >> http://linkint.pl/f2919 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Feb 20 08:54:31 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 08:54:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?curious=B2?= Message-ID: <4D60C8B7.6090802@aol.com> Thanks for the input. Obviously against other systems of opening (Polish club; always 4 card suit when opening 1 diam., etc.) the situation is different. And they are not playing any form of Ghestem 2-suiters. (In fact,although it is in France they have never heard of Ghestem. Some actually do play the Ghestem overcalls but call them Michaels - and they mispronounce Michaels - precis?.) Here the openings of 1 club and 1 diam. simply show which minor is longer. In Konrad's response I suspect a typo. Where I play an overcall of 1 diam. after opponent's 2 clubs is an insufficient bid. Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 20 22:18:19 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:18:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 21B1(b): The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Richard Hills: >>>Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would >>>misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards >>>correspond to the classical distribution for a negative >>>double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to >>>use negative doubles. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : and because opener happened to hold 5 spades in his >opening suit, they're obviously playing 5-card majors. >Heard that recently from a not-particularly-prolific >Belgian TD. Richard Hills: >>>Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What >>>misinformation? Thomas Dehn: >>It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership >>understanding that penalty doubles can be made with >>unusual hands, such as hands holding a singleton. >> >>That partnership understanding has to be fully disclosed, >>a mere "this is a penalty double" is not sufficient. Alain Gottcheiner: >You're falling into the trap of interpreting the bid from >the holding, which shouldn't be done, rather than from the >CC, system notes, and partnership history, which should. Richard Hills: Alain Gottcheiner is correct. Thomas Dehn has joined Herman De Wael in misapplying Law 21B1(b). Hashmat Ali's low-level penalty double with a singleton trump was NOT one of our implicit partnership understandings.(1) Thus as Alain guessed might be the case, for Hashmat's double the applicable Laws are -> Law 40A3: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). and the first sentence of Law 40C1: A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. and also Law 40C2: Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) We do have an implicit partnership understanding that Hillsian penalty doubles of 4H or 4S are much friskier. So Hashmat carefully avoids MI by explaining to the opponents that the consequence of such a Hillsian penalty double is: "On a good day, there is only one overtrick." (This joke has the serious purpose of warning declarer that a safety play guarding against a trump stack to guarantee one off in 4Sx is not necessarily the best line of play.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 21 01:28:09 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:28:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] curious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01cbd07b$82d40940$887c1bc0$@com> Message-ID: Laval Du Breuil: [snip] >I have seen so much inefficient and unknown things mostly >played by beginners. [snip] >Unfortunately, we do not have a lot of scientific studies >analyzing bridge systems and conventions. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec The "beginner" David Stevenson, 25th February 2005, on how he reversed a scientific analysis of the Roche convention: [snip] Somewhat more recently, ie in the last twenty years, a convention called Roche became popular in clubs. You must realise that in England players like the weak no-trump, regarding the strong no-trump as a quirk of our former colonists. However, they get upset when they pick up a balanced 12-14, and someone opens 1NT ahead of them. Note: 1 of a suit does not upset them because then they use the takeout double whatever their shape. So someone came up with the idea of playing 2C over 1NT to say "You have a weak NT? Well, so do I!" To make it playable [!!!] it shows at least three clubs. I have played it when my friend from South-West of Melbourne visited Liverpool and it worked beautifully: show me anyone else who could reach 2C on a 4-4 fit for 90! Anyway, the EBU Council said that conventions with no bridge merit should not be permitted, and Roche was deleted. This caused an outcry. This was before my time on the L&EC, and I thought they were bark^H^H^H^Hmisguided because it was played in a lot of clubs. A few years later half-way through a wet afternoon on the L&EC when I was presenting things to them for agreement they looked so somnolent that I offered Roche in my most bored voice and it went through unchallenged!!! David Stevenson /\ /\ @ @ =( + )= ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Feb 21 09:59:36 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:59:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] curious In-Reply-To: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> References: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D622978.40901@meteo.fr> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > I often play at a club in the French province. The level of play is not > very high and the knowledge of the laws and modern conventions is nil. > Most of the players play a simple better minor system. After opponent's > opening of 1 diam. they bid 2 diam. to show 5/5 in the majors. But > after opponent's opening of 1 club they bid 2 clubs as natural with > clubs and 2 diamonds to show the 5/5. This leads to occasional club > contracts with a guaranteed horrible break in trumps and to not reaching > diamond contracts with 9 or 10 diamonds between them. > I have never encountered this before although I have played bridge in at > least 10 countries and at least 30 clubs. > Have any blmlers encountered this? it's the way it is played not only in french catalunia but in whole france and even by most top french players. i think it is taught in sef, the standard french system taught by diplomed bridge teachers to beginners. i agree it's irrational but i think it's so because players are very suspicious to 1c openings. better minor is largely spread but has not the same meaning for everybody and induces lots of "tactical" bids, and even, sadly to say, cpu in some cases. for example, there are players who open balanced hands with their better minor when they have 4 spades (they will most of time be dummy in a nt contract), and with their worst minor otherwise: they will be declarer, the deception will be more effective and most of time the opponents will never notice. jpr > > Trying to explain the illogic of their bids over 1 club is hopeless. > They nod politely and continue to use their familiar convention. (Often > with disastrous results.) > > Ciao, JE -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 21 10:48:21 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:48:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D5E3D78.3080202@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <2020800798.621696.1298033480592.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <4D5E773B.6050107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D6234E5.1080401@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/02/2011 5:28, David Grabiner a ?crit : > "Alain Gottcheiner" > >> AG : in a long post three years ago, I explained how I became aware that >> they weree playing in a 5-2 fit with trumps 5-1 and only moderate >> assets, based on my partner having shown "some 5-card major" and the >> other being impossible. >> Whence I doubled on a singleton. >> Opponents wouldn't expect a penalty double to be made on a singleton. >> I would seldom made any (surely less often than Richard, at least) >> Should partner have explained that I could hold a singleton ? > In this situation, you are doubling based on an inference from the bidding that > partner will leave the double in with normal values given what he has already > shown, and the contract will go down; that is the definition of a penalty > double. If you misunderstood the bidding and partner has five cards in the > wrong major, he will leave your double in with his doubleton trump and the > opponents will make an overtrick in their ten-card fit. AG : no risk. In that case, given what dummy has shown in responses to the relays, there would be at least 14 spades in the pack. > In contrast, a double made with a singleton with the expectation that partner > will pull it with a normal hand and two trumps is optional, not penalty, and > would need to be explained as such. AG : but that wasn't the meaning of that double. The meaning was "partner, they'll go down", so what's the problem ? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Cibor at poczta.fm Mon Feb 21 10:48:26 2011 From: Cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:48:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] curious In-Reply-To: <1298278798.32169.nfs130.mgezy:5606:-1:-1> References: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> <1298278798.32169.nfs130.mgezy:5606:-1:-1> Message-ID: "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" pisze: > Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > > I often play at a club in the French province. The level of play is not > > very high and the knowledge of the laws and modern conventions is nil. > > Most of the players play a simple better minor system. After opponent's > > opening of 1 diam. they bid 2 diam. to show 5/5 in the majors. But > > after opponent's opening of 1 club they bid 2 clubs as natural with > > clubs and 2 diamonds to show the 5/5. This leads to occasional club > > contracts with a guaranteed horrible break in trumps and to not reaching > > diamond contracts with 9 or 10 diamonds between them. > > I have never encountered this before although I have played bridge in at > > least 10 countries and at least 30 clubs. > > Have any blmlers encountered this? > > it's the way it is played not only in french catalunia but in whole > france and even by most top french players. I the most recent The Bridge World there is a case of both players overcall 2D over 1C to show 5-5. It was DIAMOND vs FLEISHER, the final match of the US trials. i think it is taught in sef, > the standard french system taught by diplomed bridge teachers to > beginners. i agree it's irrational but i think it's so because players > are very suspicious to 1c openings. better minor is largely spread but > has not the same meaning for everybody and induces lots of "tactical" > bids, and even, sadly to say, cpu in some cases. for example, there are > players who open balanced hands with their better minor when they have 4 > spades (they will most of time be dummy in a nt contract), and with > their worst minor otherwise: they will be declarer, the deception will > be more effective and most of time the opponents will never notice. > jpr Yes, indeed. I remember a piece in Le bridgeur where one of the top French stars (Alain L?vy IIRC but not 100% sure) recommended opening 1 of a worse minor on a regular basic and even called it "tactique gagnante" (winning tactics). I remember that I was disgusted because in general it is always "tactique gagnante" to bid one way and tell your opponents otherwise. In Poland there are many pairs who frequently open 1NT with 14 HCP but don't alert their 1NT openings and still explain them as 15-17. On a side note I consider it as one of the strongest points of the Polish Club to hide the exact distibution of balanced hands. We open 1C with all balanced hands and respond 2C with all balanced hands (2C response to 1X shows clubs or BAL GF). When partner _is_ interested in the exact distribution he has the tools but in most bread and butter auctions (1C - 1S - 1NT - 3NT) information about which minor is better is useless to partner and only helps the opponents. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland --------------------------------------------------------------- Wszystko o szokujacym wypadku Roberta Kubicy! Sprawdz >>> http://linkint.pl/f2916 From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 21 11:01:43 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:01:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] curious In-Reply-To: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> References: <4D600C59.6000606@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D623807.8010705@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/02/2011 19:30, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > I often play at a club in the French province. The level of play is not > very high and the knowledge of the laws and modern conventions is nil. > Most of the players play a simple better minor system. After opponent's > opening of 1 diam. they bid 2 diam. to show 5/5 in the majors. But > after opponent's opening of 1 club they bid 2 clubs as natural with > clubs and 2 diamonds to show the 5/5. This leads to occasional club > contracts with a guaranteed horrible break in trumps and to not reaching > diamond contracts with 9 or 10 diamonds between them. > I have never encountered this before although I have played bridge in at > least 10 countries and at least 30 clubs. > Have any blmlers encountered this? AG : this is popular in Belgium, perhaps because some play 4-card diamonds and opponents don't want to use two different defensive systems, perhaps because 2D is free over 1C but no low jump in a minor is available over diamonds. Anyway, there is some logic in this system : playing "better minor", which in France doesn't mean "better", but "longer and clubs if 33", a 1D opening will be a 3-card about once in 25 (4-4-3-2 only), while a 1C opening will be a 3-card about once in 5 (4423, 4333, 3433) Of course, if you bid 2C on AQxxx, it's silly, but if you do it carefully, it's a good preempt. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 21 11:13:27 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:13:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D623AC7.5040307@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/02/2011 22:18, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills > > (1) We do have an implicit partnership understanding that > Hillsian penalty doubles of 4H or 4S are much friskier. So > Hashmat carefully avoids MI by explaining to the opponents > that the consequence of such a Hillsian penalty double is: > > "On a good day, there is only one overtrick." > > (This joke has the serious purpose of warning declarer that > a safety play guarding against a trump stack to guarantee > one off in 4Sx is not necessarily the best line of play.) > AG : perfectly right, in the same vein as alerting and explaining partner's 3C opening as "sometimes he hols as many as six", so that declarer is warned that he might need to cut the communications - of course perhaps he'll lose a rick in the process, that's how loose preempts work) Anyway, if partner isn't expected to take out the double, then it's a penalty double, and whichever length you hold is irrelevant to this definition. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 21 13:55:12 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:55:12 -0000 Subject: [BLML] curious - dictionary reference In-Reply-To: <4D622978.40901@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <3238E5B203D44F86A7F93223F14FCF17@Thain> Grattan Endicott References: <3238E5B203D44F86A7F93223F14FCF17@Thain> Message-ID: <4D6263CB.5010400@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/02/2011 13:55, Grattan Endicott a ?crit : > > Grattan Endicott Skype: grattan.endicott > ************************************************* > " 'Logic': The art of thinking and reasoning > in strict accordance with the limitations and > incapacities of the human misunderstanding." > ['The Devil's Dictionary'] > ************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > Sent: 21 February 2011 09:00 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] curious > > > Trying to explain the illogic of their bids > over 1 club is hopeless. They nod politely > and continue to use their familiar convention. AG : frankly, I don't see why it is forcedly inferior to bid 2C over 1C with Kxx - xx - xx - AQJ10xx, knowing that the most probable number of clubs in East's hand is 4, making our suit a 1-loser suit. And it uses a whole lot of space. What is familiar, i.e. diabolic, is to do it with the HQ in lieu of the CA. Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 21 15:11:04 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:11:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <001501cbcdc5$4784fba0$d68ef2e0$@no> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> <001501cbcdc5$4784fba0$d68ef2e0$@no> Message-ID: <017301cbd1d1$2d4ef370$87ecda50$@nl> I am very sorry to say that this seems to reveal an incorrect understanding of PRNG programming in general and I suspect the fallacy comes from the assumption that a specific pseudo random number will always correspond to a specific deal. Incidentally I know that this is the way BigDeal is programmed, but it is not the only way and in fact is an inferior way. A better way is to have each PRNG output control the transition from one deal to the next so that each deal is a result of both the current seed and the last previous deal. Then even the same seed reused will result in a different deal and my analysis indicates that while 16 bits PRNG can safely be used to produce only about 12 deals in a set the 32 bits PRNG will produce sets with at least 826000 deals without any risk of statistically detectable correlation within a set or between deals in different sets started with different seeds. Don't get me wrong. I am now using BigDeal myself after translating it to Delphi and verifying that its properties are OK. However, I am not satisfied with humans being able to produce "random" data on command so I have implemented a different procedure than the one used in the original BigDeal implementation to obtain all 160 bits for the starting seed. [Hans] Ok, suppose you have an algorithm, that takes a constant initial condition, and some random starting value(seed) and you generate one hand, then the number of possibilities for that one hand is <= the number of possible seed values. The same goes for a sequence of any number of hands. So, if you want to be able to generate all possible hands(which I happen to think is necessary) either you need at least a 96 bit seed, or you need a way to vary your initial condition otherwise, or even change your algorithm. Can we agree on this, or do you have a different point of view? >From your description it sounds as if your program remembers the last deal from the previous set, and uses it as a start for the next set. Is that correct? Furthermore, you say you do not trust humans with generating random data, and you have a different procedure. Can you explain how that works, and how you think you improved on the human? Personally I have not done much work on statistical analysis on sequences of bridge hands, most of that work was done by Kaj Backas. More later, thanks for discussing this, Hans From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Feb 21 15:35:29 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:35:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] curious - dictionary reference In-Reply-To: <3238E5B203D44F86A7F93223F14FCF17@Thain> References: <3238E5B203D44F86A7F93223F14FCF17@Thain> Message-ID: <4D627831.7020402@aol.com> Ahoj Grattan! Good to see you quoting from "The Devil's Dictionary". There are a number of other passages in it which could be applied to blml correspondence. Ciao, JE Am 21.02.2011 13:55, schrieb Grattan Endicott: > > Grattan Endicott Skype: grattan.endicott > ************************************************* > " 'Logic': The art of thinking and reasoning > in strict accordance with the limitations and > incapacities of the human misunderstanding." > ['The Devil's Dictionary'] > ************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort > Sent: 21 February 2011 09:00 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] curious > > > Trying to explain the illogic of their bids > over 1 club is hopeless. They nod politely > and continue to use their familiar convention. > << > +=+ 'familiar' as in "a spirit or demon supposed > to come to a person, especially a > witch, at his or her call". > > ? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 21 16:26:28 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:26:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Computer dealing In-Reply-To: <017301cbd1d1$2d4ef370$87ecda50$@nl> References: <4D59DEE0.1000404@nhcc.net> <201102151151.p1FBpNSV004155@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <009501cbcd11$8d7fc450$a87f4cf0$@nl> <000f01cbcd19$03169840$0943c8c0$@no> <4D5A8FC4.4050108@ripe.net> <001001cbcd1f$6b94b860$42be2920$@no> <000601cbcd67$3a7e6a80$af7b3f80$@nl> <001501cbcdc5$4784fba0$d68ef2e0$@no> <017301cbd1d1$2d4ef370$87ecda50$@nl> Message-ID: <002001cbd1db$b649bd40$22dd37c0$@no> As we agreed to continue our conversation off BLML I received this also separately and answered it directly. I assume Hans sent it here by mistake. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans > van Staveren > Sent: 21. februar 2011 15:11 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer dealing > > I am very sorry to say that this seems to reveal an incorrect understanding of > PRNG programming in general and I suspect the fallacy comes from the > assumption that a specific pseudo random number will always correspond to a > specific deal. Incidentally I know that this is the way BigDeal is programmed, but it > is not the only way and in fact is an inferior way. > > A better way is to have each PRNG output control the transition from one deal to > the next so that each deal is a result of both the current seed and the last > previous deal. Then even the same seed reused will result in a different deal and > my analysis indicates that while 16 bits PRNG can safely be used to produce only > about 12 deals in a set the 32 bits PRNG will produce sets with at least 826000 > deals without any risk of statistically detectable correlation within a set or between > deals in different sets started with different seeds. > > Don't get me wrong. I am now using BigDeal myself after translating it to Delphi > and verifying that its properties are OK. However, I am not satisfied with humans > being able to produce "random" data on command so I have implemented a > different procedure than the one used in the original BigDeal implementation to > obtain all 160 bits for the starting seed. > > > [Hans] > > Ok, suppose you have an algorithm, that takes a constant initial condition, and > some random starting value(seed) and you generate one hand, then the number > of possibilities for that one hand is <= the number of possible seed values. > The same goes for a sequence of any number of hands. > > So, if you want to be able to generate all possible hands(which I happen to think is > necessary) either you need at least a 96 bit seed, or you need a way to vary your > initial condition otherwise, or even change your algorithm. > Can we agree on this, or do you have a different point of view? > > >From your description it sounds as if your program remembers the last > >deal > from the previous set, and uses it as a start for the next set. Is that correct? > > Furthermore, you say you do not trust humans with generating random data, and > you have a different procedure. Can you explain how that works, and how you > think you improved on the human? > > Personally I have not done much work on statistical analysis on sequences of > bridge hands, most of that work was done by Kaj Backas. > > More later, thanks for discussing this, > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 21 17:00:14 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:00:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D628C0E.5090008@nhcc.net> On 2/18/2011 9:25 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > ... a partnerhip understanding > that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right > to defend the opponents' contract doubled. ... It's the definition of a penalty double. This is an interesting case where naming an agreement may be inadequate. Usually that applies to conventions, but here it's a natural call where naming it may not be enough. > What is there to additionally disclose? The requirement is to disclose agreements and partnership experience relevant to the call. Typically this will mean describing the hand types that might be held, though we know it's difficult when the hand types cover a wide range as for penalty doubles (and also for relay bids, for example). If experience tells you that partner will make penalty doubles on hand types normal opponents won't expect, that has to be disclosed. Of course if the opponents have bid themselves to a rotten contract, and partner has put the double on, subsequent MI to them is unlikely to cause further damage. That doesn't change the principle, though. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 21 23:07:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:07:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] curious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D623807.8010705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Francois Rabelais (1493? - 1553), one line will: "Je n'ai rien vaillant; je dois beaucoup; je donne le reste aux pauvres." [I have nothing, owe a great deal, and the rest I leave to the poor.] Alain Gottcheiner: >Anyway, there is some logic in this system : playing "better >minor", which in France doesn't mean "better", but "longer >and clubs if 33", a 1D opening will be a 3-card about once >in 25 (4-4-3-2 only), while a 1C opening will be a 3-card >about once in 5 (4423, 4333, 3433) Richard Hills: With 3-2-4-4 or 2-3-4-4 1C is opened by many Aussies, 1D is opened by many ACBLers(1), while Michael Rosenberg opens 1C and 1D at an approximately equal frequency. Konrad Ciborowski: >I remember a piece in Le bridgeur where one of the top >French stars (Alain L?vy IIRC but not 100% sure) recommended >opening 1 of a worse minor on a regular basic and even >called it "tactique gagnante" (winning tactics). I remember >that I was disgusted because in general it is always >"tactique gagnante" to bid one way and tell your opponents >otherwise. Richard Hills: Perhaps "tactique Gargantua et Pantagruel" because it causes righteous disgust to the righteous??? :-) :-) Rosenberg has a number of subtle criteria by which he makes his decision between 1C and 1D. But Rosenberg has very carefully avoided informing his partners of those subtle criteria, hence they are not undisclosed _partnership_ understandings. (Once the Master Solvers' Club of The Bridge World posed a problem about which minor to open with 4-4; MSC panellist Rosenberg of course abstained on that question.) Best wishes Richard Hills (1) But Edgar Kaplan almost always opened 1C, since he disliked missing distributional (but cold) 5C games when responder was too weak to show their long club suit after a 1D opening bid. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 22 00:10:50 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:10:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D628C0E.5090008@nhcc.net> Message-ID: >..... >The requirement is to disclose agreements and partnership >experience relevant to the call. Typically this will mean >describing the hand types that might be held, though we >know it's difficult when the hand types cover a wide range >as for penalty doubles (and also for relay bids, for >example). >..... _During_ an Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) game force relay auction: (a) practical disclosure, albeit not full disclosure, of a relay call is "relay, asking me to describe my hand further" but (b) both practical and also full disclosure is given of the step response to a relay call. _After_ the conclusion of an Ali-Hills Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request) game force relay auction, _then_ negative inferences can be drawn from the timing of the relay break to the final contract, and those negative inferences are _now_ fully disclosed before the opening lead is selected. Best wishes 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 22 00:36:00 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:36:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-15?q?Fwd=3A_curious=B3?= Message-ID: <4D62F6E0.3000908@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110221/0cbb07b4/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 22 09:34:37 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:34:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <4D628C0E.5090008@nhcc.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4D628C0E.5090008@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4D63751D.2010609@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/02/2011 17:00, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 2/18/2011 9:25 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> ... a partnerhip understanding >> that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right >> to defend the opponents' contract doubled. ... It's the definition of a penalty double. > This is an interesting case where naming an agreement may be inadequate. > Usually that applies to conventions, but here it's a natural call where > naming it may not be enough. > > > What is there to additionally disclose? > > The requirement is to disclose agreements and partnership experience > relevant to the call. Typically this will mean describing the hand > types that might be held, though we know it's difficult when the hand > types cover a wide range as for penalty doubles (and also for relay > bids, for example). If experience tells you that partner will make > penalty doubles on hand types normal opponents won't expect, that has to > be disclosed. AG : I beg to differ. If opponents don't know that, in order to double after partner's "free" 1NT bid, I don't need a good trump holding, I don't have to tell them. I remember a case when a player complianed that a double of a 4S opening on x - AKx - AKx - Qxxxxx had been called "penalties". He was nonsuited. I doubled on a void in this very old case - more for the fun of doing so than with any soundness : 1C (1) Dbl 1D (2) pass 1NT (3) 2H Dbl (1) 15+ unbalanced, 20+ balanced - alerted, ask, explanation (2) 5+ without 5-card major - alert, no question (3) 15-19, 5+ hearts without 4 spades - alert, no question It's a bit as if you complained that they aren't allowed to bid a slam in a suit where they are void. IIRC, the first registered case is from HS Vanderbilt himself. The bidding had begun 1C (forcing) - 3C (solid suit). Notice that I don't agree fully with Richard, when he states that TFLB covers the double with the "may vary from system" proviso, as he himself has said that the double was normal in their style. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 22 09:39:20 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:39:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] curious [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D637638.5030307@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/02/2011 23:07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Francois Rabelais (1493? - 1553), one line will: > > "Je n'ai rien vaillant; je dois beaucoup; je donne le reste > aux pauvres." > > [I have nothing, owe a great deal, and the rest I leave to > the poor.] > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> Anyway, there is some logic in this system : playing "better >> minor", which in France doesn't mean "better", but "longer >> and clubs if 33", a 1D opening will be a 3-card about once >> in 25 (4-4-3-2 only), while a 1C opening will be a 3-card >> about once in 5 (4423, 4333, 3433) > Richard Hills: > > With 3-2-4-4 or 2-3-4-4 1C is opened by many Aussies, 1D is > opened by many ACBLers(1), while Michael Rosenberg opens 1C > and 1D at an approximately equal frequency. AG : indeed, but this doesn't change the probabilities by such a big amount. I assumed the Rosenberg version. Apart from that, I agree that not giving information about balanced hands unless it is necessary (e.g. opening 1C always, or 1D on 12-14 and 1C on 18-20) is good tactics. From blml at arcor.de Tue Feb 22 09:53:10 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:53:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <4D63751D.2010609@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D63751D.2010609@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <4D628C0E.5090008@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <580494235.998725.1298364790284.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 21/02/2011 17:00, Steve Willner a ?crit : > > On 2/18/2011 9:25 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> ... a partnerhip understanding > >> that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right > >> to defend the opponents' contract doubled. ... It's the definition of a penalty double. > > This is an interesting case where naming an agreement may be inadequate. > > Usually that applies to conventions, but here it's a natural call where > > naming it may not be enough. > > > > > What is there to additionally disclose? > > > > The requirement is to disclose agreements and partnership experience > > relevant to the call. Typically this will mean describing the hand > > types that might be held, though we know it's difficult when the hand > > types cover a wide range as for penalty doubles (and also for relay > > bids, for example). If experience tells you that partner will make > > penalty doubles on hand types normal opponents won't expect, that has to > > be disclosed. > AG : I beg to differ. If opponents don't know that, in order to double > after partner's "free" 1NT bid, I don't need a good trump holding, I > don't have to tell them. > I remember a case when a player complianed that a double of a 4S opening > on x - AKx - AKx - Qxxxxx had been called "penalties". He was nonsuited. > > I doubled on a void in this very old case - more for the fun of doing so > than with any soundness : > > 1C (1) Dbl 1D (2) pass > 1NT (3) 2H Dbl > > (1) 15+ unbalanced, 20+ balanced - alerted, ask, explanation > (2) 5+ without 5-card major - alert, no question > (3) 15-19, 5+ hearts without 4 spades - alert, no question > > It's a bit as if you complained that they aren't allowed to bid a slam > in a suit where they are void. > IIRC, the first registered case is from HS Vanderbilt himself. The > bidding had begun 1C (forcing) - 3C (solid suit). Sorry, no. I'm making this a bit more extreme to make it more obvious. Lets say that you and partner have the misguided agreement to regularly make penalty doubles with singletons and voids in their suit, on the theory that if you have a singleton or void, trumps must be splitting poorly. Partner will typically pass, and once in a while they make a couple of overtricks in their 7-5 fit. Playing that style, opponents still have to be informed on this agreement: o it will affect how they play the trump suit o they might want to redouble. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Tue Feb 22 12:10:33 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:10:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 18, 2011, at 3:43 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum > >> > >> Dlr: East > >> Vul: None > >> > >> K86 > >> 95432 > >> A32 > >> Q3 > >> QT53 AJ7 > >> 6 AT8 > >> K974 JT5 > >> JT84 AK97 > >> 942 > >> KQJ7 > >> Q86 > >> 652 > >> > >> The bidding went: > >> > >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> Hashmat Ali Richard Hills > >> --- --- 1C (1) Pass > >> 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H > >> X (4) Pass Pass Pass > >> > >> (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. > >> > >> (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response > >> to a later supplementary question information that > >> "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted > >> of one king, four queens and four jacks). > >> > >> (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or > >> semi-balanced, with the possibility of two > >> doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a > >> heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. > >> > >> (4) Self-alerting. On enquiry this double was > >> explained as "Release the Kraken!", not a negative > >> double. > >> > >> East-West did not make any defensive error, thus > >> scored a 500 penalty versus 2Hx for a gain of 8 imps > >> against the datum. > >> > >> At the table the Director was not summoned. > >> > >> But if the Director had been summoned, would you as > >> Director apply a procedural penalty for East's > >> misinformation about West's negative double? > >> > >> Thomas Dehn: > >> > >>> No, but I would explain their obligations to E/W. > >>> > >>> That much said, some pairs understand their > >>> obligations only if violating the obligations is > >>> penalized. > >> > >> Alain Gottcheiner: > >> > >>> AG : had it any influence on declarer's play? I don't > >>> think so. So there isn't any need for score > >>> adjustment. > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Alain is correct in that there was no damage and > >> hence no cause for score adjustment. But whether or > >> not a procedural penalty is applied to an infraction > >> is not in any way linked to whether or not that > >> infraction happened to damage the opponents. > >> > >> Alain Gottcheiner: > >> > >>> (one would also need to check whether the double > >>> wasn't indeed for penalties in their system, with West > >>> either forgetting this or taking a gamble) > >> > >> Gordon Rainsford: > >> > >>> What is their actual agreement? > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Indeed. A prolific Belgian blmler and Director would > >> misapply Law 21B1(b) to rule that since West's cards > >> correspond to the classical distribution for a negative > >> double, East-West necessarily had an actual agreement to > >> use negative doubles. > >> > >> Alain Gottcheiner: > >> > >>> Are you absolutely sure that there was the infraction > >>> of MI ? > >>> > >>> We have some evidence from West's hand that he perhaps > >>> was doubling for takeout, but: > >>> > >>> 1) the fact that East passed, with an indifferent Heart > >>> holding in the context of a 1NT bid, is a hint that the > >>> double was for penalties; perhaps West took a shot > >>> (reading the 1NT bid for more in hearts?) > >>> ..... > >> > >> Richard Hills: > >> > >> Yes, my original post contained a trick question. What > >> misinformation? The Ali-Hills partnership have a > >> documented aversion to negative doubles in general, and > >> a documented aversion to negative doubles after a natural > >> 1NT bid in particular. > >> > >> Hashmat Ali (West) ignored his singleton heart to roll > >> the dice with a "Release the Kraken!" on 2H, due to > >> Hashmat holding defensive values in the other three > >> suits. Some might argue that was bad bridge, and > >> therefore Hashmat should be penalised under Law 72A or > >> Law 74B1. > > > > It sounds to me like Ali-Hills have a partnership understanding > > that penalty doubles can be made with unusual hands, such > > as hands holding a singleton. > > > > That partnership understand has to be fully disclosed, a mere "this > > is a penalty double" is not sufficient. > > It sounds to me, OTOH, like Ali-Hills have a partnerhip understanding > that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right > to defend the opponents' contract doubled. This has nothing to do > with whether they hold a singleton, or some other feature that others > might consider "unusual", It's the definition of a penalty double. > What is there to additionally disclose? Information about the partnership understanding that they make penalty doubles with many hands where other players would not make a penalty double. Same applies to your style, btw. Then, let me provide the following example auction, from a league match: Me LHO partner RHO 2H(1) X(2) pass pass(3) (1) weak-two (2) penalty double (3) after quite a bit of hesitation How do you think the trumps split? LHO has zero, RHO has five. Their CC does not detail what a double against a weak two shows. I did not believe them that they really had agreed on penalty doubles. I think they cheated. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 22 12:32:05 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:32:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D639EB5.9050908@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/02/2011 12:10, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> >> It sounds to me, OTOH, like Ali-Hills have a partnerhip understanding >> that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right >> to defend the opponents' contract doubled. This has nothing to do >> with whether they hold a singleton, or some other feature that others >> might consider "unusual", It's the definition of a penalty double. >> What is there to additionally disclose? > Information about the partnership understanding that > they make penalty doubles with many hands where other > players would not make a penalty double. > AG : this seems to me to be information about other players' methods, not something you must disclose. However, this fits nicely in the "special notes" or "pre-alert" sections, and I guess they've written it. (I do in one partnership) > Then, let me provide the following example auction, > from a league match: > > Me LHO partner RHO > 2H(1) X(2) pass pass(3) > > (1) weak-two > (2) penalty double > (3) after quite a bit of hesitation > > How do you think the trumps split? > > LHO has zero, RHO has five. > > Their CC does not detail what a double against a weak two shows. Then it's takeout (at least in my ocuntry) - that's the default value. > I did not believe them that they really had > agreed on penalty doubles. I think they cheated. > Well, if you think this is the same case, you didn't understand them. A penalty double without action from partner isn't the same thing as a penalty double after a strong notrump by partner. As I wrote before, there are cases when doubling with a singleton is automatic - e.g. when partner had already doubld for penalties. Consider this : 1S dbl 3S dbl (1) p 4C p p 4S dbl (1) suggests penalties - was on QJx - xx - Kxxx - Axxx. Would you be surprised to see overcaller double on a singleton (or void) ? He had x - AQJx - xx- KQJxxx. Furthermore, there is a school of thought that, after a forcing club, you should always double them after they've reached their limit, because they always bid one too much. That's strategy, perhaps even good strategy. Not system. BTW, your weak 2-bid example, I think they answered about the pass, not about the double. One should be very careful before using the C-word. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 22 15:48:58 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:48:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> It sounds to me, OTOH, like Ali-Hills have a partnerhip understanding >> that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right >> to defend the opponents' contract doubled. This has nothing to do >> with whether they hold a singleton, or some other feature that others >> might consider "unusual", It's the definition of a penalty double. >> What is there to additionally disclose? > > Information about the partnership understanding that > they make penalty doubles with many hands where other > players would not make a penalty double. > > Same applies to your style, btw. > > Then, let me provide the following example auction, > from a league match: > > Me LHO partner RHO > 2H(1) X(2) pass pass(3) > > (1) weak-two > (2) penalty double > (3) after quite a bit of hesitation > > How do you think the trumps split? > > LHO has zero, RHO has five. > > Their CC does not detail what a double against a weak two shows. > I did not believe them that they really had > agreed on penalty doubles. I think they cheated. There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where other players would not make a penalty double" (and is not cheating) does so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run winning tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do with doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to disclose? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 22 17:10:23 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:10:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D63DFEF.40409@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/02/2011 15:48, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> It sounds to me, OTOH, like Ali-Hills have a partnerhip understanding >>> that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right >>> to defend the opponents' contract doubled. This has nothing to do >>> with whether they hold a singleton, or some other feature that others >>> might consider "unusual", It's the definition of a penalty double. >>> What is there to additionally disclose? >> Information about the partnership understanding that >> they make penalty doubles with many hands where other >> players would not make a penalty double. >> >> Same applies to your style, btw. >> >> Then, let me provide the following example auction, >> from a league match: >> >> Me LHO partner RHO >> 2H(1) X(2) pass pass(3) >> >> (1) weak-two >> (2) penalty double >> (3) after quite a bit of hesitation >> >> How do you think the trumps split? >> >> LHO has zero, RHO has five. >> >> Their CC does not detail what a double against a weak two shows. >> I did not believe them that they really had >> agreed on penalty doubles. I think they cheated. > There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A > partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where other > players would not make a penalty double" Well, in the case above it was with a void, without partner having bid (2H-X), so there was at the very least some MI. Notice that it is barely possible that they play penalty doubles, that LHO forgot, and that the hesitation was due to the surprising high number of hearts the three hands seemed to contain. But this doesn't fit with the CC. Why is it that you both find it so difficult to discern between the two situations ? > (and is not cheating) does > so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run winning > tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, > or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent > players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of > matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will > agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do with > doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to > disclose? A general tendency to make no-trump-stack doubles, which finds its place in the "pre-alert" section. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 22 23:02:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:02:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D63DFEF.40409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum Dlr: East Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST --- --- --- 1S (1) 3C (2) Pass(3) Pass ? (4) (1) Promising 10-14 hcp and at least five spades (2) Old-fashioned pre-empt with long clubs (not Ghestem) (3) Partnership style is to almost always avoid a Trap Pass (4) Partnership style is to almost always avoid re-opening You, East, hold: KJ76543 K KT A82 If you employed the idiosyncratic East-West partnership style, what call would you, East, make? (On other deals some nattering nabobs of negativism have flim-flammed Appeals Committees by claiming that re- opening after a hesitation was mandatory in their Trap Pass and Negative Double style.) Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 22 23:28:32 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:28:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D639EB5.9050908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Three schools of thought on how a baseball umpire (or a duplicate Director) should define reality: Umpire 1: I call 'em the way I sees 'em! Umpire 2: I call 'em the way they are! Umpire 3: They ain't nothin' until I calls 'em! Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, page 19 Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >Furthermore, there is a school of thought that, after a >forcing club, you should always double them after they've >reached their limit, because they always bid one too much. > >That's strategy, perhaps even good strategy. Not system. >..... Richard Hills: (1) Many years ago an opponent executed this strategy on a 7NT contract we had reached after a forcing club and a consequent relay auction. The result was 7NTxx for +2930 to the good guys (pre-1987 scoring, would be +2980 today). (2) As soon as one partner's strategy (even good strategy) is noticed by the other partner it also becomes a pre- existing mutual implicit partnership understanding, IS NOW INDEED system, and hence is subject to disclosure to the opponents as required by Law and/or regulation. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 23 00:00:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:00:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D63751D.2010609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>..... >>Hashmat Ali's low-level penalty double with a singleton trump >>was NOT one of our implicit partnership understandings. >>..... Alain Gottcheiner: >..... >Notice that I don't agree fully with Richard, when he states >that TFLB covers the double with the "may vary from system" >proviso, as he himself has said that the double was normal in >their style. Richard Hills NOT one of our implicit partnership understandings = NOT normal in our style. What's the problem? Quel est le probl?me? The problem may be that Alain's first language is French, thus Alain may have been unable to unravel my English language indirect implication that Hashmat Ali deviated from his (and our) normal practice by risking a score of -470 defending 2Hx. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 23 07:15:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:15:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D63751D.2010609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Warning: very lengthy (but interesting) posting] Eric Landau: >>>What is there to additionally disclose? Steve Willner: >>The requirement is to disclose agreements and partnership >>experience relevant to the call. Typically this will mean >>describing the hand types that might be held, though we >>know it's difficult when the hand types cover a wide range >>as for penalty doubles (and also for relay bids, for >>example). If experience tells you that partner will make >>penalty doubles on hand types normal opponents won't >>expect, that has to be disclosed. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I beg to differ. If opponents don't know that, in >order to double after partner's "free" 1NT bid, I don't >need a good trump holding, I don't have to tell them. Richard Hills interpose: =+= I beg to differ with Alain and Eric, and I beg to agree with Steve. Sometimes announcing your partnership understanding as merely "penalty double" can be too over- succinct, and that over-succinctness is therefore misinformation. =+= http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/97stlou.pdf NABC Appeals Casebook, St. Louis Fall 1997, Case Two Life Masters Pairs, 21st November 1997, second session Bd: 19 Alice Leicht Dlr: South KJ853 Vul: E/W AQ2 J6 A75 Claude Vogel George Jacobs --- T962 J854 KT97 AKT9872 Q53 T9 Q3 Marvin French AQ74 63 4 KJ8642 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1C 3D(1) X (2) Pass 3S Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass (1) No skip-bid warning (2) Break in tempo by North; Alerted by South; penalty The Facts: 4S made six, plus 480 for N/S. South was considerably more experienced than North. After West's 3D call, North broke tempo before and after looking at the E/W convention card. She was uncertain about the best action. The Director was called at the time of the break in tempo Richard Hills interpose: =+= Immediate summoning of the Director after the break in tempo was a correct action under the 1997 Lawbook then in force, but is no longer necessarily recommended (unless the hesitating side disputes the existence of the hesitation) under the current Lawbook. =+= and again after the hand was over. The Director ruled that unauthorized information was present which could have suggested the removal of the penalty double. Since pass was a logical alternative to 3S for South, Richard Hills interpose: =+= Perhaps the Director correctly assessed "logical alternative" at the time (since it lacked a Definition in the 1997 Lawbook). But such a Director's ruling would be definitely erroneous today, since now Law 16B1(b) requires a logical alternative to be assessed "using the methods of the partnership", and North-South used idiosyncratically antique methods. =+= the Director changed the contract to 3D doubled made four, plus 870 for E/W. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South asserted that he had played tournament bridge for fifty years and that he did not play negative doubles. His approach to doubles was modeled after the S. J. Simon book, Why You Lose at Bridge. He stated that the double was a suggestion, not a command, and that he should have about four defensive tricks in his hand to pass the double with a singleton trump. South thought his hand warranted the 3S call. North admitted uncertainty about her choice of calls. When asked why she didn't bid 3S she said that she didn't want to bid "just a king-jack suit." She said "I'm doubling to let him make the decision." South submitted that the North hand was not one that called for a double in their methods. He also stated that he had system notes at home which could substantiate and corroborate the criteria he used to decide which penalty doubles to pull and which ones to pass. The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that if North's spade and diamond suits had been interchanged, the hesitation was not likely to have occurred. Richard Hills interpose: =+= Maybe true, but irrelevant. It is not North's actual reason for hesitating which matters, it is what North's hesitation demonstrably suggests to South which matters (and even then, it matters only if South has more than one logical alternative). =+= The hesitation thus conveyed the information to South that the penalty double was not based on length and strength in trumps. Richard Hills interpose: =+= Which South already knew, since that was the North- South partnership understanding. =+= While South did not have an ideal hand for defense, his hand was within the range that his partner could have anticipated when she chose the penalty double. The unauthorized information suggested that bidding 3S was more likely to be successful than passing, so South was not allowed to select that action. Richard Hills interpose: =+= Unless bidding was South's only logical alternative in the idiosyncratically antique North-South methods. The fact that at the table North's double was a Mistaken Call is not relevant to South having one and only one logical alternative, to rebid 3S. =+= Since E/W would most probably win ten tricks, the contract was changed to 3D doubled made four for both sides, plus 870 for E/W. The $50 deposit was returned. Chairman: Jon Brissman Committee Members: Phil Brady, Ed Lazarus Casebook editor Rich Colker: The methods South described can be found, as claimed, in S.J. Simon's book (page 80 of the 1967 edition). The fact that those methods are foreign to modern bidding practices is not sufficient reason to presume that no one plays them, or that the claim to be playing them is specious (or self- serving). On that basis I have a small measure of sympathy for N/S here. The Committee's statement, "... that if North's spade and diamond suits had been interchanged, the hesitation was not likely to have occurred ..." is therefore inconsistent with N/S's system and thus irrelevant to this decision. By the methods professed by N/S (what player who didn't play them would be able to cite their source so readily?) North couldn't hold the hand the Committee wanted to give her for her double. Also, the requirement Simon proposes for leaving in such a double (four-plus defensive tricks if opener has only a singleton trump) does not even remotely resemble South's hand, which has a clear-cut pull according to those methods. Of course North's tempo still places an onus upon South to take only what would be considered a "normal" or majority action. But South's cards clearly point to pulling in this case. Richard Hills interpose: =+= So far Rich Colker and I seem to be on the same page. We both appear to believe that the Director and the Appeals Committee used flawed logic to change the table score. =+= Casebook editor Rich Colker: The real problem I have with N/S's position here is that their convention card was marked "penalty doubles". That is grossly misinformative. An opponent, finding himself in a doubled contract, could easily misplay the hand by several tricks and end up going down in a cold contract by playing for trumps to be "stacked" behind him rather than evenly split. Doubles which by agreement can be made with a weak trump holding (jack-third is ideal, according to Simon) and significant (but dispersed) outside strength, are not "penalty"; they are "card-showing", "optional" or "cooperative". Richard Hills interpose: =+= S.J. Simon himself preferred to call his variation on penalty doubles as "proposition to partner" penalty doubles. I have been reliably informed that Marv, the Once and Future Blmler, has now rectified the description of his doubles on his System Cards accordingly. =+= Casebook editor Rich Colker: Opener is expected to pull the double unless he has a specific combination of extra trumps and high-cards. For N/S to mark their convention cards "penalty doubles" under these circumstances is, in my opinion, a serious infraction. Any further assessment would depend on just how diabolical I thought N/S were in failing to properly disclose their methods. If I believed the mismarked convention cards constituted a flagrant attempt to gain an unfair advantage, I would impose a disciplinary penalty on N/S equal to an appropriate score adjustment (such as the one given here) plus an additional penalty to discourage continued misrepresentation of N/S's methods. I would also keep the money. If, on the other hand, I believed (as I am inclined to here) that the problem was the result of simple oversight or ignorance for how the "penalty" description might harm the opponents, Richard Hills interpose: =+= I of course disagree with the hypothetical premise, as Marv's misinformation was unintentional, not malicious. But I also disagree with Rich's conclusion, since I believe that a Law 90 procedural penalty or a Law 91 disciplinary penalty should not be linked in any way to the separate issue of a Law 12 score adjustment. =+= Casebook editor Rich Colker: then I would simply make a score adjustment ? as this Committee did. A score adjustment will deliver the message, "If you aren't careful with your disclosures, you may lose your good scores." Richard Hills interpose: =+= Even in the context of the 1997 Lawbook, Rich Colker is speaking rubbish. If an MI infraction caused zero damage to the non-offending opponents, then the non-offending side is entitled to zero adjustment away from the table score. =+= Casebook editor Rich Colker: And why adjust E/W's score? Because they might have competed to a higher level [big snip] Richard Hills interpose: =+= Again Rich Colker is speaking rubbish. If East-West had been correctly informed of the agreed meaning of North's co- operative / proposition-to-partner double, they would never have opted for a vulnerable versus not vulnerable save. The only reason that a vulnerable versus not vulnerable save in 5Dx works is that North did not hold the values for her double of 3D, but East-West are entitled to "an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands". =+= Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 23 08:43:14 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:43:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D63751D.2010609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <201102230743.p1N7hc9C006414@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:15 PM 23/02/2011, you wrote: >[Warning: very lengthy (but interesting) posting] > >Eric Landau: > > >>>What is there to additionally disclose? > >Steve Willner: > > >>The requirement is to disclose agreements and partnership > >>experience relevant to the call. Typically this will mean > >>describing the hand types that might be held, though we > >>know it's difficult when the hand types cover a wide range > >>as for penalty doubles (and also for relay bids, for > >>example). If experience tells you that partner will make > >>penalty doubles on hand types normal opponents won't > >>expect, that has to be disclosed. > >Alain Gottcheiner: > > >AG : I beg to differ. If opponents don't know that, in > >order to double after partner's "free" 1NT bid, I don't > >need a good trump holding, I don't have to tell them. > >Richard Hills interpose: > >=+= I beg to differ with Alain and Eric, and I beg to agree >with Steve. Sometimes announcing your partnership >understanding as merely "penalty double" can be too over- >succinct, and that over-succinctness is therefore >misinformation. =+= snip very interesting case featuring our own Marvin French. Tony: I am totally confused by this thread. I put my head above the parapet at one stage saying that I would make a penalty double (I don't think they can make it): partner might remove (well I think they can). So we are supposed to describe all our penalty doubles as "optional"? I can wear "partner does not promise any trump tricks", and indeed I racked up -470 against Jim Borin when we had 24 or so points. I vowed never to play bridge again, or at least against Jim Borin, so 1 out of 2 wasnt too bad. Are players in the US not allowed to describe a double as "penalty" and then remove it? Cheers Tony (Sydney) From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 23 11:04:25 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:04:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1004303052.459559.1298455465996.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum > > Dlr: East > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > --- --- --- 1S (1) > 3C (2) Pass(3) Pass ? (4) > > (1) Promising 10-14 hcp and at least five spades > (2) Old-fashioned pre-empt with long clubs (not Ghestem) > (3) Partnership style is to almost always avoid a Trap Pass > (4) Partnership style is to almost always avoid re-opening > > You, East, hold: > > KJ76543 > K > KT > A82 > > If you employed the idiosyncratic East-West partnership > style, what call would you, East, make? Given the partnership style I'd pass, but I would consider 3S. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 23 13:46:25 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:46:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1859521868.875389.1298465185190.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 05:15 PM 23/02/2011, you wrote: > >[Warning: very lengthy (but interesting) posting] > > > >Eric Landau: > > > > >>>What is there to additionally disclose? > > > >Steve Willner: > > > > >>The requirement is to disclose agreements and partnership > > >>experience relevant to the call. Typically this will mean > > >>describing the hand types that might be held, though we > > >>know it's difficult when the hand types cover a wide range > > >>as for penalty doubles (and also for relay bids, for > > >>example). If experience tells you that partner will make > > >>penalty doubles on hand types normal opponents won't > > >>expect, that has to be disclosed. > > > >Alain Gottcheiner: > > > > >AG : I beg to differ. If opponents don't know that, in > > >order to double after partner's "free" 1NT bid, I don't > > >need a good trump holding, I don't have to tell them. > > > >Richard Hills interpose: > > > >=+= I beg to differ with Alain and Eric, and I beg to agree > >with Steve. Sometimes announcing your partnership > >understanding as merely "penalty double" can be too over- > >succinct, and that over-succinctness is therefore > >misinformation. =+= > snip very interesting case featuring our own Marvin French. > > Tony: > I am totally confused by this thread. I put my head above the > parapet at one stage saying that I would make a penalty > double (I don't think they can make it): partner might > remove (well I think they can). So we are supposed to > describe all our penalty doubles as "optional"? I can wear > "partner does not promise any trump tricks", and indeed > I racked up -470 against Jim Borin when we had 24 or so > points. I vowed never to play bridge again, or at least against > Jim Borin, so 1 out of 2 wasnt too bad. > > Are players in the US not allowed to describe a double as > "penalty" and then remove it? There exist at least two limitations. UI: The example ruling Richard brought up relates to a penalty double after a hesitation. Here, the ruling will frequently be that the hesitation suggested doubt about the penalty character of the penalty double, and thus "demonstrably" suggested removing the penalty double. If passing is considered an LA, that penalty double after a hesitation might well lead to an adjusted score. MI: The other limitation, which is the one we have been discussing for a while, is that when partner is aware of your style with which hands you make a penalty double, that becomes a partnership understanding, and thus has to be disclosed. Simply saying "this is a penalty double" is not always sufficient, especially not if your style is unusual and surprising to opponents. This is a bit more tricky because it can be hard to distinguish between actual partnership experience and agreements, and an individual hand where a player made a one-time decision to make a penalty double. You are allowed to role the dice and make a penalty double with a singleton and a void. Your partner is allowed to remove those "penalty doubles". But there might be MI. If you have a partnership understanding to make low level penalty doubles with singletons and voids when you have no AI that partner has length in that suit, that partnership understanding has to be disclosed. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Feb 23 13:58:10 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:58:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> References: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <645361692.876096.1298465890717.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> It sounds to me, OTOH, like Ali-Hills have a partnerhip understanding > >> that penalty doubles can be made with any hand that thinks it's right > >> to defend the opponents' contract doubled. This has nothing to do > >> with whether they hold a singleton, or some other feature that others > >> might consider "unusual", It's the definition of a penalty double. > >> What is there to additionally disclose? > > > > Information about the partnership understanding that > > they make penalty doubles with many hands where other > > players would not make a penalty double. > > > > Same applies to your style, btw. > > > > Then, let me provide the following example auction, > > from a league match: > > > > Me LHO partner RHO > > 2H(1) X(2) pass pass(3) > > > > (1) weak-two > > (2) penalty double > > (3) after quite a bit of hesitation > > > > How do you think the trumps split? > > > > LHO has zero, RHO has five. > > > > Their CC does not detail what a double against a weak two shows. > > I did not believe them that they really had > > agreed on penalty doubles. I think they cheated. > > There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A > partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where other > players would not make a penalty double" (and is not cheating) does > so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run winning > tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, > or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent > players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of > matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will > agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do with > doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to > disclose? No, it has a lot to do with doubling or not doubling with particular hands. And that has to be disclosed. All partnership understandings have to be disclosed. Whether doubling or not doubling with particular hands is good bridge is mostly irrelevant. You have to disclose both your partnership understandings that are good bridge and your partnership understandings that are bad bridge. For example, when playing with the Conductor, I have to inform opponents that my partner is completely nuts and will frequently make outlandish bids they would never have imagined (such as a psychic natural 1NT overcall on a flat 7 count, vulnerable). Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 23 15:02:55 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:02:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <645361692.876096.1298465890717.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <645361692.876096.1298465890717.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Feb 23, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A >> partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where other >> players would not make a penalty double" (and is not cheating) does >> so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run winning >> tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, >> or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent >> players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of >> matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will >> agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do with >> doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to >> disclose? > > No, it has a lot to do with doubling or not doubling with > particular hands. > And that has to be disclosed. All partnership understandings have > to be disclosed. We have no agreement at all -- either explicit or implicit -- that has anything to do with particular hand types. I still don't understand what it is that Thomas would like us to disclose. > Whether doubling or not doubling with particular hands is good bridge > is mostly irrelevant. You have to disclose both your partnership > understandings that are good bridge and your partnership > understandings that are bad bridge. Our "agreement", such as it is -- and it is explicit, we have discussed it -- is that we both believe that it is winning strategy at matchpoints to double for penalties considerably more often than "the field". So we do. That's all there is. Is this really a disclosable "partnership agreement" in the sense that TFLB uses the term? > For example, when playing with the Conductor, I have to inform > opponents that my partner is completely nuts and will frequently make > outlandish bids they would never have imagined (such as a psychic > natural 1NT overcall on a flat 7 count, vulnerable). My partner, in contrast, is not completely nuts, or even a little bit nuts (arguably), and has never penalty-doubled a contract he thought they would probably make, so I don't see the analogy. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 00:34:32 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:34:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau: >Our "agreement", such as it is -- and it is explicit, we have >discussed it -- is that we both believe that it is winning >strategy at matchpoints to double for penalties considerably >more often than "the field". So we do. That's all there is. >Is this really a disclosable "partnership agreement" in the >sense that TFLB uses the term? Thomas Dehn: >>For example, when playing with the Conductor, I have to >>inform opponents that my partner is completely nuts and will >>frequently make outlandish bids they would never have >>imagined (such as a psychic natural 1NT overcall on a flat 7 >>count, vulnerable). Eric Landau: >My partner, in contrast, is not completely nuts, or even a >little bit nuts (arguably), and has never penalty-doubled a >contract he thought they would probably make, so I don't see >the analogy. Richard Hills: My two cents worth. If the Landau-partner style is that they: (a) use their judgement to double for penalties when "the field" would choose a wimpy Pass, then as Director I would rule that failure to disclose this was trivial, but (b) have a style to "take the money" in 4Sx for +500 rather than risk bidding 5H for +650 or -100, then as Director I would rule that failure to disclose was significant, since now sacrificing is less attractive for the opponents than if they were playing against another pair in "the field". +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Nattering nabob Jon Brissman, 1997 Chair of Marv's appeal: In retrospect, I think we were overly generous in returning the deposit. It appears that North totally abdicated her responsibility for bidding her hand, Richard Hills interpose: =+= What Law states that North must be able to bid expertly when North was not and is not an expert? =+= Nattering nabob Jon Brissman, 1997 Chair of Marv's appeal: and her tempo may have assisted South in deciphering her distress. Richard Hills interpose: =+= Since the 2007 Law 16B1(b) proves that South had only the one logical alternative of 3S, nowadays it would be totally and utterly irrelevant whether North's break in tempo did or did not permit South to deduce that North had chosen a Mistaken Call. =+= Nattering nabob Jon Brissman, 1997 Chair of Marv's appeal: The fact that South lambasted the Committee and its decision in an Internet discussion group has done nothing to make me sympathetic to his position. Richard Hills interpose: Given that Jon's Committee was arguably incorrect under the fuzzy 1997 Lawbook and definitely incorrect under the clarified 2007 Lawbook, the Committee deserved lambasting on blml then and now. Constructive criticism of the Committee's erroneous reasoning should have made Jon reconsider his position, not harden his position by wishing to retrospectively vote for a retention of the deposit. But Jon fell into a well-known psychological trap (more recently demonstrated by Hosni Mubarak) by assuming that the powerful person is perfectly perspicacious, thus the blml plebeian perspectives have peccability. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 00:54:40 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:54:40 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] (b) have a style to "take the money" in 4Sx for +500 rather than risk bidding 5H for +650 or -100, then as Director I would rule that failure to disclose was significant, since now sacrificing is less attractive for the opponents than if they were playing against another pair in "the field". Richard is saying that a player has a right to know the opponent's propensity for penalty doubles. I am not so sure. Seems to me that there is an infinite-regress problem: If our opponents tell us that they rarely penalty double, then we can be more aggressive in our bidding. We must inform the opponents of this, and the opponents, knowing this, change their system to be more aggressive in their doubling, and then we decide it is wise to be less aggressive in our bidding. And so on. The solution, it seems to me, and I think that this is ACBL policy, is that the side that calls first must choose their style and keep it that way, and then the other side chooses their response. All of this should be before the looking at the hands, of course. That would mean the propensity to double need not be fixed first. Am I making sense? I suppose in practice in might work something like this: We see on their card that they play penalty doubles instead of negative doubles. We decide to change our weak jump overcalls to intermediate, and we tell them this. They then change to play negative doubles, and they tell us this. I _think_ that we are now stuck playing intermediate jump overcalls, at least in ACBL events. They get to change their defense to our methods. This seems to come about as close as we can to solving the infinite-regress problem. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 01:58:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:58:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>(b) have a style to "take the money" in 4Sx for +500 rather >>than risk bidding 5H for +650 or -100, then as Director I >>would rule that failure to disclose was significant, since >>now sacrificing is less attractive for the opponents than >>if they were playing against another pair in "the field". Jerry Fusselman: >Richard is saying that a player has a right to know the >opponent's propensity for penalty doubles. I am not so >sure. > >Seems to me that there is an infinite-regress problem: >..... Richard Hills: No, seems to me that eventually (not infinitely) the two sides' competing styles would resolve to a Nash equilibrium whereby the expected payoffs for the two finalised styles would resolve at zero imps each against par. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 02:20:53 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:20:53 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > > No, seems to me that eventually (not infinitely) the two > sides' competing styles would resolve to a Nash equilibrium > whereby the expected payoffs for the two finalised styles > would resolve at zero imps each against par. > Seems like nonsense to me. I offer four observations: 1. Bridge is timed game. 2. There is no reason the equilibrium would be zero imps. One side may have better cards. 3. Sometimes the a simple equilibrium does not exist, and then the solution may be a mixing strategy. 4. The Cournot-Nash theory is for nonzero-sum games, and bridge is usually a zero-sum game. Jerry Fusselman Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 03:47:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:47:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>No, seems to me that eventually (not infinitely) the two >>sides' competing styles would resolve to a Nash equilibrium >>whereby the expected payoffs for the two finalised styles >>would resolve at zero imps each against par. Jerry Fusselman: >Seems like nonsense to me. I offer four observations: > >1. Bridge is timed game. (3) > >2. There is no reason the equilibrium would be zero imps. >One side may have better cards. Richard Hills: Seems like my occasional error in me being over-succinct in my blml postings has led me to being misunderstood. I carefully wrote "zero imps against par", NOT "zero imps". I agree that if East-West can make 10 tricks in hearts and a non-vulnerable North-South can make 8 tricks in spades, then East-West's better cards mean that _par_ is 4Sx for a penalty of +300 gained by East-West. The point that I over-succinctly failed to make last time is that if a foolish East-West follow the foolish "field" strategy of always bidding a vulnerable 5H over a non- vulnerable 4S sacrifice by North-South, then it is a 100% winning strategy for North-South to take such a non- vulnerable sacrifice when available --> at worst they break even (5H -650 instead of 4H -650), but they might gain (5H +100 instead of 4H -620), and they do not have any downside risk (no 4Sx -800). And, of course, North-South are very much interested in whether Eric Landau-partner are sitting East-West in an otherwise foolish "field", since now North-South do have a downside risk of 4Sx -800. Best wishes Richard Hills (3) "Bridge is a timed game" does not apply out of session when preparing strategy against known opponents prior to a long match. For example, the late great George Jesner was a superb declarer player, so consequently adopted a flawed strategy of "bidding one more" a little too often. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 05:43:48 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:43:48 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Richard Hills: > > Seems like my occasional error in me being over-succinct in > my blml postings has led me to being misunderstood. ?I > carefully wrote "zero imps against par", NOT "zero imps". > Sorry, "zero imps against par" is wrong too. The par result might depend on trumps being 3-3, a singleton K, and an offside Q. There is no bidding strategy that guarantees the par result, for no bidding strategy gives you knowledge of all four hands. Furthermore, even if an equilibrium exists, a director could still be called to the table in a situation like I described: NS: penalty EW: intermediate jump overcall NS: negative EW: weak jump overcall The concept of equilibrium does not guarantee no infinite regress in practice, even if some theoretical equilibrium could be proven to exist if both sides were perfectly rational and knowledgeable. A director really needs a way to handle this kind of situation, for even 10 years is not enough time to reach a conclusion if you have no rule to handle it and side one gives up. A director does not get to say, "An equilibrium exists, so shut up!" Seriously, how can anyone handle this, except by the rules I quoted (attributed to the ACBL)? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 06:32:18 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:32:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >NS: penalty >EW: intermediate jump overcall >NS: negative >EW: weak jump overcall > > >The solution, it seems to me, and I think that this is >ACBL policy, is that the side that calls first must choose >their style and keep it that way, and then the other side >chooses their response. All of this should be before the >looking at the hands, of course. That would mean the >propensity to double need not be fixed first. > >Seriously, how can anyone handle this, except by the rules >I quoted (attributed to the ACBL)? Not the actual ACBL solution. They have this better one -> ACBL General Conditions of Contest, page 5: "Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner." That is, _neither_ side may change their methods during a session, e.g NS must always use penalty doubles and EW must always use intermediate jump overcalls, no matter what the methods of their current opponents during the session are. What's the problem? A problem would only occur if two opposing pairs had pre- arranged variable methods which depended upon the pre- arranged variable methods of their current opponents. For example, as a joke John (MadDog) Probst and his partner once played a session whereby their agreed methods were, "We play your system." In one round MadDog's relay opponents joined in the fun, being very helpful in advising MadDog and partner on how best to complete a game force relay auction. But if two "We play your system" pairs met each other, every call by each side would be non-systemic. :-) :-) Best wishes 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 07:11:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:11:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Not the actual ACBL solution. They have this better one -> > >ACBL General Conditions of Contest, page 5: > >"Players should review their own convention cards before >the start of the session to make sure that they are current >on the agreements with this particular partner." > >That is, _neither_ side may change their methods during a >session, e.g NS must always use penalty doubles and EW must >always use intermediate jump overcalls, no matter what the >methods of their current opponents during the session are. My answer was insufficiently nuanced. The ACBL permits a side to select at the table a defence to a Special Partnership Understanding and/or a defence to a preemptive bid. (But of course penalty doubles are not Special Partnership Understandings, and intermediate jump overcalls are not preemptive bids.) ACBL Law 40B2(a) regulation, pages 136-137 of 2008 Lawbook: Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card. a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament Director. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change its basic system.) b. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review its opponents' convention card and alter its defenses against the opponents' special understandings and preemptive bids. This must be announced to its opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these defensive alterations. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 24 09:48:20 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:48:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? In-Reply-To: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> A recent case made me think about hesitation rules : x Jxx AJx KQx xx AK10xx AKQxxxx xx 1C (1) 2D (2) 3C 3H 4H 5C (3) 6C (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit (3) after tempo West's argument for bidding 6 : "the absence of a 4S bid was good news. Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? Thank you for the advice. Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 24 09:57:19 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:57:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D661D6F.3010202@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/02/2011 23:28, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Three schools of thought on how a baseball umpire (or a > duplicate Director) should define reality: > > Umpire 1: I call 'em the way I sees 'em! > Umpire 2: I call 'em the way they are! > Umpire 3: They ain't nothin' until I calls 'em! > > Thomas Cathcart& Daniel Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark > go to Washington, page 19 > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> ..... >> Furthermore, there is a school of thought that, after a >> forcing club, you should always double them after they've >> reached their limit, because they always bid one too much. >> >> That's strategy, perhaps even good strategy. Not system. >> ..... > Richard Hills: > > (1) Many years ago an opponent executed this strategy on a > 7NT contract we had reached after a forcing club and a > consequent relay auction. The result was 7NTxx for +2930 > to the good guys (pre-1987 scoring, would be +2980 today). Of course, I mean ovecaller's side's limits. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 24 10:24:11 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:24:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1859521868.875389.1298465185190.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <1859521868.875389.1298465185190.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D6623BB.2000602@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/02/2011 13:46, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > You are allowed to role the dice and make a penalty double with a singleton > and a void. Your partner is allowed to remove those "penalty doubles". > But there might be MI. If you have a partnership understanding to make > low level penalty doubles with singletons and voids when you have > no AI that partner has length in that suit, that partnership understanding > has to be disclosed. > AG : that's why it is important that partner's bid was a free natural 1NT. You have AI about partner's hand type. Also, I disagree with those who say that this double can be removed. Because the 1NT bidder has made a pretty good job of describing his hand. In such a case, taking out a penalty double would clearly show that it wans't penalties after all. Contrast with the 3D case, where opener's hand wasn't defined at all. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 10:37:59 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:37:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? In-Reply-To: <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: 2011/2/24 Alain Gottcheiner : > A recent case made me think about hesitation rules : > > x ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jxx > AJx ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQx > xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AK10xx > AKQxxxx ? ? xx > > 1C (1) ? ? ? ?2D (2) > 3C ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3H > 4H ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5C (3) > 6C > > (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) > (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit > (3) after tempo > > West's argument for bidding 6 : "the absence of a 4S bid was good news. > Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". > > Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? > > Thank you for the advice. I'd have to know more about their methods here. I suppose 3C showed 16+ with clubs. What did 3H show? I suppose it showed heart values (honours). But did it only show uncertainty about strain (and level) or anything else? 4H obviously was a cuebid with clubs as trumps. Need to know what 4S over 4H would show. For me that would be "last train", showing slam interest, and 5C would be sign off. If 4S would be a real cuebid, raising to 6C makes sense to me. Give east Qx KQxx AJTxx xx, and 6C is great. I don't know if this is a possible hand - would this hand bid 1H over 1C? > > > ? ?Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 24 10:38:27 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:38:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Quiz question (2) Message-ID: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> Another one, hopefully with less discussion: 4NT - (5He) - 5Cl 5 clubs shows zero aces, the pair play DOPI. Can the IB be changed to a double? And if 5Cl shows 0/3? I don't think Aces/Key Cards make any difference, or does it? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 10:43:04 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:43:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Quiz question (2) In-Reply-To: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> References: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2011/2/24 Herman De Wael : > Another one, hopefully with less discussion: > > 4NT - (5He) - 5Cl > > 5 clubs shows zero aces, the pair play DOPI. > > Can the IB be changed to a double? Yes, that's clearly within L27B1b, the double has exactly the same meaning as 5C. > > And if 5Cl shows 0/3? Yes, same as above. (I play double as 0/3, but if it only shows 0 that's more precise than 0/0 and still OK). > > I don't think Aces/Key Cards make any difference, or does it? Surely not. > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 24 10:47:40 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:47:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Quiz question (2) In-Reply-To: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> References: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1336051691.1151587.1298540860356.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael > Another one, hopefully with less discussion: > > 4NT - (5He) - 5Cl > > 5 clubs shows zero aces, the pair play DOPI. > > Can the IB be changed to a double? > > And if 5Cl shows 0/3? > > I don't think Aces/Key Cards make any difference, or does it? As Harald wrote, yes, in this example it should be allowed. However, you'd have to check whether they really play D0P1, or rather DEPO. I.e., what would they answer over the 5He with two aces and no trump queen? Thomas From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Feb 24 10:50:28 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:50:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Quiz_question_=282=29?= In-Reply-To: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> References: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1PsXq9-1pbflI0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Another one, hopefully with less discussion: > > 4NT - (5He) - 5Cl was 4NT the start of the auction, or does the writeup omit the beginning? > 5 clubs shows zero aces, the pair play DOPI. > > Can the IB be changed to a double? yes, see Law 27 B1b (same meaning) > And if 5Cl shows 0/3? still possible, see Law 27 B1b (more precise meaning) > I don't think Aces/Key Cards make any difference, or does it? no, it does not. The answer (IB) was a number (in the range 0...4/5) to a question (Aces/KC) and the RC promises a number (0) to the same question. From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 24 10:50:56 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:50:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? In-Reply-To: <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <2497310.1168918.1298541056346.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > A recent case made me think about hesitation rules : > > x Jxx > AJx KQx > xx AK10xx > AKQxxxx xx > > 1C (1) 2D (2) > 3C 3H > 4H 5C (3) > 6C > > (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) > (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit > (3) after tempo > > West's argument for bidding 6 : "the absence of a 4S bid was good news. > Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". > > Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? No, but I don't see how the BIT "demonstrably" suggests bidding a C slam. Isn't it rather the previous auction (partner has diamonds and a H fragment) that suggests bidding 6C? Thomas From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Feb 24 11:06:25 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:06:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D662DA1.8060606@meteo.fr> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Richard Hills: > >>> (b) have a style to "take the money" in 4Sx for +500 rather >>> than risk bidding 5H for +650 or -100, then as Director I >>> would rule that failure to disclose was significant, since >>> now sacrificing is less attractive for the opponents than >>> if they were playing against another pair in "the field". > > Jerry Fusselman: > >> Richard is saying that a player has a right to know the >> opponent's propensity for penalty doubles. I am not so >> sure. >> >> Seems to me that there is an infinite-regress problem: >> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > No, seems to me that eventually (not infinitely) the two > sides' competing styles would resolve to a Nash equilibrium > whereby the expected payoffs for the two finalised styles > would resolve at zero imps each against par. it is not sufficient that an equilibrium point exists to be certain it will be reached. an equilibrium may be stable or instable and even when it is stable, an iterative process may converge or diverge. i agree it's insane to allow conditional agreements which depend on opponents'agreements for ensuing calls. jpr > > See: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section > Specialist Recruitment Team > Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 24 11:17:40 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:17:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? In-Reply-To: References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D663044.8050105@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/02/2011 10:37, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2011/2/24 Alain Gottcheiner: >> A recent case made me think about hesitation rules : >> >> x Jxx >> AJx KQx >> xx AK10xx >> AKQxxxx xx >> >> 1C (1) 2D (2) >> 3C 3H >> 4H 5C (3) >> 6C >> >> (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) >> (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit >> (3) after tempo >> >> West's argument for bidding 6 : "the absence of a 4S bid was good news. >> Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". >> >> Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? >> >> Thank you for the advice. > I'd have to know more about their methods here. > I suppose 3C showed 16+ with clubs. > What did 3H show? I suppose it showed heart values (honours). But did > it only show uncertainty about strain (and level) or anything else? Nothing very special, except that one shouldn't hold a very bad diamond suit and 2353 pattern. > 4H obviously was a cuebid with clubs as trumps. > Need to know what 4S over 4H would show. For me that would be "last > train", showing slam interest, and 5C would be sign off. This pair doesn't use "last train". > If 4S would > be a real cuebid, raising to 6C makes sense to me. > > Give east Qx KQxx AJTxx xx, and 6C is great. I don't know if this is a > possible hand - would this hand bid 1H over 1C? No, 2D (assuming you consider it a game force ; else add CJ) Of course, 6C makes sense given the conditions. I was wondering whetehr pass does, i.e .is pass a LA ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 24 11:22:37 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:22:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Quiz question (2) In-Reply-To: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> References: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D66316D.4080705@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/02/2011 10:38, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Another one, hopefully with less discussion: > > 4NT - (5He) - 5Cl > > 5 clubs shows zero aces, the pair play DOPI. > > Can the IB be changed to a double? AG : Given those conditions it can, but many play DEPO, and many say DOPI without knowing what it means, so you have to investigate. Do they bid 5S on two keycards over 5H, or do they double ? > And if 5Cl shows 0/3? AG : once again, given the conditions, it is allowed. The whole set of cases for the double is included in the set of cases for the 5C bid, whence there is no added information from the cancelled bid. > I don't think Aces/Key Cards make any difference, or does it? > AG : I don't see how, unless they change methods over interference. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 24 12:07:46 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:07:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? In-Reply-To: <4D663044.8050105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D663044.8050105@ulb.ac.be> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <356343692.927842.1298545666703.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 24/02/2011 10:37, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > 2011/2/24 Alain Gottcheiner: > >> A recent case made me think about hesitation rules : > >> > >> x Jxx > >> AJx KQx > >> xx AK10xx > >> AKQxxxx xx > >> > >> 1C (1) 2D (2) > >> 3C 3H > >> 4H 5C (3) > >> 6C > >> > >> (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) > >> (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit > >> (3) after tempo > >> > >> West's argument for bidding 6 : "the absence of a 4S bid was good news. > >> Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". > >> > >> Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? > >> > >> Thank you for the advice. > > I'd have to know more about their methods here. > > I suppose 3C showed 16+ with clubs. > > What did 3H show? I suppose it showed heart values (honours). But did > > it only show uncertainty about strain (and level) or anything else? > Nothing very special, except that one shouldn't hold a very bad diamond > suit and 2353 pattern. > > > 4H obviously was a cuebid with clubs as trumps. > > Need to know what 4S over 4H would show. For me that would be "last > > train", showing slam interest, and 5C would be sign off. > This pair doesn't use "last train". > > > If 4S would > > be a real cuebid, raising to 6C makes sense to me. > > > > Give east Qx KQxx AJTxx xx, and 6C is great. I don't know if this is a > > possible hand - would this hand bid 1H over 1C? > No, 2D (assuming you consider it a game force ; else add CJ) > > > Of course, 6C makes sense given the conditions. I was wondering whetehr > pass does, i.e .is pass a LA ? I think that's too close to call. But keep in mind that pass being an LA is not the only condition to check. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 24 12:12:37 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:12:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <106604746.1153178.1298545957084.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Le 23/02/2011 13:46, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > > > You are allowed to role the dice and make a penalty double with a singleton > > and a void. Your partner is allowed to remove those "penalty doubles". > > But there might be MI. If you have a partnership understanding to make > > low level penalty doubles with singletons and voids when you have > > no AI that partner has length in that suit, that partnership understanding > > has to be disclosed. > > > AG : that's why it is important that partner's bid was a free natural > 1NT. You have AI about partner's hand type. >From Richard's description, that 1NT rebid could be made with a singleton. So there is no AI about "length" in partner's hand. > Also, I disagree with those who say that this double can be removed. > Because the 1NT bidder has made a pretty good job of describing his > hand. Of course only Richard can answer that, but I wonder whether he might run from such a low level "penalty double" if he holds the hand with a singleton in opponents' suit. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 24 12:20:20 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:20:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <725132778.1153687.1298546420214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Richard Hills] (b) have a style to "take the money" in 4Sx for +500 > rather than risk bidding 5H for +650 or -100, then as Director I would > rule that failure to disclose was significant, since now sacrificing > is less attractive for the opponents than if they were playing > against another pair in "the field". > > Richard is saying that a player has a right to know the opponent's > propensity for penalty doubles. I am not so sure. > > Seems to me that there is an infinite-regress problem: If our > opponents tell us that they rarely penalty double, then we can be more > aggressive in our bidding. We must inform the opponents of this, and > the opponents, knowing this, change their system to be more aggressive > in their doubling, and then we decide it is wise to be less aggressive > in our bidding. And so on. > > The solution, it seems to me, and I think that this is ACBL policy, is > that the side that calls first must choose their style and keep it > that way, and then the other side chooses their response. All of this > should be before the looking at the hands, of course. That would mean > the propensity to double need not be fixed first. > > Am I making sense? You are making sense, but I think you mix up two different topics. 1.) A double in a specific auction, such as 1NT 2H X. Here, the strength of the 1NT opener has to be defined first, and the meaning of the 2H bid then can depend on the strength of the 1NT opener. The meaning of the double then can depend on the meaning of the 2H bid. No infinite loop there. 2.) General style, such as "we double for penalties aggressively" or "we never ever psyche". Opponents are entitled to that information regardless of the actual auction on any hand. Preferably anything unusual there should be clearly expressed on the CC so that opponents can see it before the first hand of the round is played. Here, it makes sense for the RA to prevent pairs from changing their general style because that might lead to an infinite loop. Thomas From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 24 13:20:39 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:20:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? Message-ID: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> During the auction North makes a call/bid and South alerts it. East does not ask and considers his action. West then asks for an explication of the alert. After he is told that he can only ask when it is his turn to bid, his partner (belatedly) asks for an explanation. (Variation: East has a bidding card in his hand, has started to withdraw it from the bidding box - or has withdrawn it but has not shown it.) It seems to me logical that he should not be allowed to ask but I don't know if this can be supported by the TBR (?16B?) Opinions of blmlers? Ciao, JE From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 24 13:29:10 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:29:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> References: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> Message-ID: <00c501cbd41e$7086c920$51945b60$@nl> Nobody can ever forbid East from asking, it is his right. However, the question of West is OI to East with all the normal consequences. This of course assumes no pre-alert or such was necessary for the bid of North. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: donderdag 24 februari 2011 13:21 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? During the auction North makes a call/bid and South alerts it. East does not ask and considers his action. West then asks for an explication of the alert. After he is told that he can only ask when it is his turn to bid, his partner (belatedly) asks for an explanation. (Variation: East has a bidding card in his hand, has started to withdraw it from the bidding box - or has withdrawn it but has not shown it.) It seems to me logical that he should not be allowed to ask but I don't know if this can be supported by the TBR (?16B?) Opinions of blmlers? Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 24 13:45:27 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:45:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> References: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D6652E7.80802@skynet.be> Well, I would suggest that he is allowed to ask, but he's no longer allowed to use the information learnt, so he'd better noet ask it, because it will restrict his actions. Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > During the auction North makes a call/bid and South alerts it. East > does not ask and considers his action. West then asks for an > explication of the alert. After he is told that he can only ask when it > is his turn to bid, his partner (belatedly) asks for an explanation. > (Variation: East has a bidding card in his hand, has started to withdraw > it from the bidding box - or has withdrawn it but has not shown it.) It > seems to me logical that he should not be allowed to ask but I don't > know if this can be supported by the TBR (?16B?) Opinions of blmlers? > Ciao, JE > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3464 - Release Date: 02/23/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Feb 24 13:49:53 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:49:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <00c501cbd41e$7086c920$51945b60$@nl> References: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> <00c501cbd41e$7086c920$51945b60$@nl> Message-ID: <001901cbd421$561a13f0$024e3bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Nobody can ever forbid East from asking, it is his right. However, the question of West is OI to East with all the normal consequences. This of course assumes no pre-alert or such was necessary for the bid of North. Hans ho, ho, ho Read L20G1: it is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. And this case seems to be one where the TD might decide that east is doing so. ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110224/ca2e5284/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 24 14:00:24 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:00:24 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1756747141.1182258.1298552424269.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>..... > >>Hashmat Ali's low-level penalty double with a singleton trump > >>was NOT one of our implicit partnership understandings. > >>..... > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >..... > >Notice that I don't agree fully with Richard, when he states > >that TFLB covers the double with the "may vary from system" > >proviso, as he himself has said that the double was normal in > >their style. > > Richard Hills > > NOT one of our implicit partnership understandings = NOT normal > in our style. > > What's the problem? > Quel est le probl?me? > > The problem may be that Alain's first language is French, thus > Alain may have been unable to unravel my English language > indirect implication that Hashmat Ali deviated from his (and > our) normal practice by risking a score of -470 defending 2Hx. Well, from what you wrote in this thread and earlier in other threads, I also had the impression that making low level penalty doubles is normal practice in the Ali-Hills partnership, possibly via "I promised not to do that, but I'll do it anyways" Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 24 14:09:51 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:09:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <001901cbd421$561a13f0$024e3bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> <00c501cbd41e$7086c920$51945b60$@nl> <001901cbd421$561a13f0$024e3bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4D66589F.8000206@skynet.be> not necessarily, Ton. West has already shown that he is interested in the meaning. So east can no longer tell West that the meaning might be interesting. Rather, West was asking for the benefit of East, and that is forbidden, and it means East has received UI that he cannot act upon. ton wrote: > Nobody can ever forbid East from asking, it is his right. > However, the question of West is OI to East with all the normal > consequences. > > This of course assumes no pre-alert or such was necessary for the bid of > North. > > Hans > > ho, ho, ho > > Read L20G1: it is improper to ask a question solely for partner?s benefit. > > And this case seems to be one where the TD might decide that east is > doing so. > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3464 - Release Date: 02/23/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 24 15:30:22 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:30:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <106604746.1153178.1298545957084.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> References: <106604746.1153178.1298545957084.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail11.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D666B7E.4030104@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/02/2011 12:12, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner >> Le 23/02/2011 13:46, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >>> You are allowed to role the dice and make a penalty double with a singleton >>> and a void. Your partner is allowed to remove those "penalty doubles". >>> But there might be MI. If you have a partnership understanding to make >>> low level penalty doubles with singletons and voids when you have >>> no AI that partner has length in that suit, that partnership understanding >>> has to be disclosed. >>> >> AG : that's why it is important that partner's bid was a free natural >> 1NT. You have AI about partner's hand type. > > From Richard's description, that 1NT rebid could be made with a singleton. > So there is no AI about "length" in partner's hand. AG : I assume he means it could be a singleton in another suit, e.g. K-AJx-Qxxxx-AKxx. Reverse the majors and I guess even he wouldn't do this. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 24 15:59:57 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:59:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <344BD7BB-6AD0-4891-BFDF-BE054FF50F76@starpower.net> On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:11 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Not the actual ACBL solution. They have this better one -> >> >> ACBL General Conditions of Contest, page 5: >> >> "Players should review their own convention cards before >> the start of the session to make sure that they are current >> on the agreements with this particular partner." >> >> That is, _neither_ side may change their methods during a >> session, e.g NS must always use penalty doubles and EW must >> always use intermediate jump overcalls, no matter what the >> methods of their current opponents during the session are. > > My answer was insufficiently nuanced. The ACBL permits a > side to select at the table a defence to a Special > Partnership Understanding and/or a defence to a preemptive > bid. (But of course penalty doubles are not Special > Partnership Understandings, and intermediate jump overcalls > are not preemptive bids.) > > ACBL Law 40B2(a) regulation, pages 136-137 of 2008 Lawbook: > > Both members of a partnership must employ the same system > that appears on the convention card. > > a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, > except with permission of the tournament Director. (A > Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would > not allow a pair to change its basic system.) > > b. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review > its opponents' convention card and alter its defenses against > the opponents' special understandings and preemptive bids. > This must be announced to its opponents. The opponents may > not vary their system after being informed of these defensive > alterations. Short of expecting players at the table to mind-read "the opinion of the RA" [L40B1(a)], how is a pair who would like to agree to a particular defense against a particular opponent's (non-preemptive) methods to distinguish between a "special understanding" that the RA has not chosen to disallow, restrict or attach any special conditions to the use of and an "ordinary" understanding that isn't "special"? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at arcor.de Thu Feb 24 16:17:31 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:17:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: <1679149072.503661.1298560651913.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Le 24/02/2011 12:12, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > >> Le 23/02/2011 13:46, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > >>> You are allowed to role the dice and make a penalty double with a singleton > >>> and a void. Your partner is allowed to remove those "penalty doubles". > >>> But there might be MI. If you have a partnership understanding to make > >>> low level penalty doubles with singletons and voids when you have > >>> no AI that partner has length in that suit, that partnership understanding > >>> has to be disclosed. > >>> > >> AG : that's why it is important that partner's bid was a free natural > >> 1NT. You have AI about partner's hand type. > > > From Richard's description, that 1NT rebid could be made with a singleton. > > So there is no AI about "length" in partner's hand. > AG : I assume he means it could be a singleton in another suit, e.g. > K-AJx-Qxxxx-AKxx. Reverse the majors and I guess even he wouldn't do this. Well, here is his original description again: ==== snip ==== WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hashmat Ali Richard Hills --- --- 1C (1) Pass 1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H X (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. (2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response to a later supplementary question information that "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted of one king, four queens and four jacks). (3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or semi-balanced, with the possibility of two doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. ==== snap ==== I interpreted that as 1NT essentially being an artificial catch-all bid that might even have a singleton in hearts. Of course Alain's interpretation is possible, too. Only Richard knows ;-). Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 24 16:51:29 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:51:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Quiz question (2) In-Reply-To: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> References: <4D662713.3090608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <24EEE060-1072-4A6E-B9F1-8E7982DAA532@starpower.net> On Feb 24, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Another one, hopefully with less discussion: > > 4NT - (5He) - 5Cl > > 5 clubs shows zero aces, the pair play DOPI. > > Can the IB be changed to a double? Yes. > And if 5Cl shows 0/3? Yes. > I don't think Aces/Key Cards make any difference, or does it? No. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Thu Feb 24 16:53:35 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:53:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? In-Reply-To: <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net><1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D661B54.90804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CDA25221502D74-1294-35D2@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> No, and a PP for the 6C bid. -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 8:48 Subject: Re: [BLML] Do you accept this ? A recent case made me think about hesitation rules : x Jxx AJx KQx xx AK10xx AKQxxxx xx 1C (1) 2D (2) 3C 3H 4H 5C (3) 6C (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit (3) after tempo West's argument for bidding 6 : "the absence of a 4S bid was good news. Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? Thank you for the advice. Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 24 17:06:06 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:06:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <4D662DA1.8060606@meteo.fr> References: <4D662DA1.8060606@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <2578232B-48CC-4FD5-B6B4-9A5C150846B3@starpower.net> On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:06 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> Richard Hills: >> >>>> (b) have a style to "take the money" in 4Sx for +500 rather >>>> than risk bidding 5H for +650 or -100, then as Director I >>>> would rule that failure to disclose was significant, since >>>> now sacrificing is less attractive for the opponents than >>>> if they were playing against another pair in "the field". >> >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >>> Richard is saying that a player has a right to know the >>> opponent's propensity for penalty doubles. I am not so >>> sure. >>> >>> Seems to me that there is an infinite-regress problem: >>> ..... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> No, seems to me that eventually (not infinitely) the two >> sides' competing styles would resolve to a Nash equilibrium >> whereby the expected payoffs for the two finalised styles >> would resolve at zero imps each against par. > > it is not sufficient that an equilibrium point exists to be certain it > will be reached. an equilibrium may be stable or instable and even > when > it is stable, an iterative process may converge or diverge. > i agree it's insane to allow conditional agreements which depend on > opponents'agreements for ensuing calls. Surely Jean-Pierre doesn't mean this. We all do it all the time. What would be "insane", for example, would be to play the same agreements against an EHAA "mini" 1NT (10-12 balanced) as against a Rosenkranz "dynamic" 1NT (18-21 unbalanced), or to play the same agreements against 1NT-P-2H to play as against -2H showing spades. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 24 17:44:49 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:44:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> References: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> Message-ID: On Feb 24, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > During the auction North makes a call/bid and South alerts it. East > does not ask and considers his action. West then asks for an > explication of the alert. After he is told that he can only ask > when it > is his turn to bid, his partner (belatedly) asks for an explanation. > (Variation: East has a bidding card in his hand, has started to > withdraw > it from the bidding box - or has withdrawn it but has not shown > it.) It > seems to me logical that he should not be allowed to ask but I don't > know if this can be supported by the TBR (?16B?) Opinions of blmlers? It does feel like it ought to be covered by L16, but it's a bit of a stretch to interpret West's out-of-turn inquiry as "suggest[ing] a call or play" given that East's questionable subsequent inquiry would be neither. Is suggesting reconsideration of one's chosen call or play really the same thing? TFLB does provide various alternative routes to adjusting the score, including L23, or L12A1 applied to L20F1, or one could make a case for applying L16 based on the reference to it in L20F1, but any of those provide only for adjusting the result after the fact. Actually disallowing East from repeating West's inquiry would raise practical problems: Should East be barred from making any inquiry at all? (Including asking for a review?) If not, how do we decide whether a particular question is sufficiently "different" from West's to be allowed? And how, if at all, would East be restricted from making inquiries on subsequent turns? Despite these questions, however, Jeff makes a good point, and it might not be amiss for TPTB to consider addressing it by regulation or clarifying the point the next FLB. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Feb 24 18:11:48 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:11:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <2578232B-48CC-4FD5-B6B4-9A5C150846B3@starpower.net> References: <4D662DA1.8060606@meteo.fr> <2578232B-48CC-4FD5-B6B4-9A5C150846B3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D669154.8010209@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Feb 24, 2011, at 5:06 AM, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>>>> (b) have a style to "take the money" in 4Sx for +500 rather >>>>> than risk bidding 5H for +650 or -100, then as Director I >>>>> would rule that failure to disclose was significant, since >>>>> now sacrificing is less attractive for the opponents than >>>>> if they were playing against another pair in "the field". >>> Jerry Fusselman: >>> >>>> Richard is saying that a player has a right to know the >>>> opponent's propensity for penalty doubles. I am not so >>>> sure. >>>> >>>> Seems to me that there is an infinite-regress problem: >>>> ..... >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> No, seems to me that eventually (not infinitely) the two >>> sides' competing styles would resolve to a Nash equilibrium >>> whereby the expected payoffs for the two finalised styles >>> would resolve at zero imps each against par. >> it is not sufficient that an equilibrium point exists to be certain it >> will be reached. an equilibrium may be stable or instable and even >> when >> it is stable, an iterative process may converge or diverge. > >> i agree it's insane to allow conditional agreements which depend on >> opponents'agreements for ensuing calls. > > Surely Jean-Pierre doesn't mean this. We all do it all the time. > What would be "insane", for example, would be to play the same > agreements against an EHAA "mini" 1NT (10-12 balanced) as against a > Rosenkranz "dynamic" 1NT (18-21 unbalanced), or to play the same > agreements against 1NT-P-2H to play as against -2H showing spades. more surely i could not express what i meant as english is not my native language. with "ensuing", i intended calls coming later. is "subsequent" or "following" the right word? jpr > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- _______________________________________________ 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 richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Feb 24 18:42:23 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:42:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <4D669154.8010209@meteo.fr> References: <4D662DA1.8060606@meteo.fr> <2578232B-48CC-4FD5-B6B4-9A5C150846B3@starpower.net> <4D669154.8010209@meteo.fr> Message-ID: > Jerry Fusselman: > Seems to me that there is an infinite-regress problem: >> Richard Hills: >> >> No, seems to me that eventually (not infinitely) the two >> sides' competing styles would resolve to a Nash equilibrium >> whereby the expected payoffs for the two finalised styles >> would resolve at zero imps each against par.-- This isn't at all clear to me (and I did my PhD work in game theory, low these many years ago)... I'm not sure that Jerry is describing a game theoretic problem. Nash equilbirum is a concept that is used to describe one possible outcome of a game. To me, this looks like an argument regarding how one establishes the rules for the game 1. Who moves first? 2. How many moves are there? 3. What constitutes a move? (Are moves "pure" strategies or are "mixed" strategies allowed ? 4. What type of disclosure is required? Here's a simple example: 1. East / West need to disclose their methods first 2. North / South is then able to change their methods 3. E/W is then offered the option to change their methods 4. The cycle continues until someone gets so sick and tired of the regression that they decide to just play cards One could frame a game theoretic version of this problem (how many rounds of this idiocy do I put up with before I decide that I don't care taking a loss on my methods?). However, there is no reason to expect that the final payoff is symmetric > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians > had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were > monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110224/cb9e9d78/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 22:08:47 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:08:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1679149072.503661.1298560651913.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>NOT one of our implicit partnership understandings = NOT >>normal in our style. >>..... >>Hashmat Ali deviated from his (and our) normal practice >>by risking a score of -470 defending 2Hx. Thomas Dehn: >Well, from what you wrote in this thread and earlier in >other threads, I also had the impression that making low >level penalty doubles is normal practice in the Ali-Hills >partnership, possibly via "I promised not to do that, but >I'll do it anyways" Richard Hills: Low-level penalty doubles = one of our explicit partnership understandings = normal in our style. Low-level penalty doubles WITH A SINGLETON TRUMP risking a score of -470 = not one of our implicit partnership understandings = not normal in our style. Thomas Dehn: >Well, here is his original description again: > >==== snip ==== >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Hashmat Ali Richard Hills >--- --- 1C (1) Pass >1D (2) 1H 1NT(3) 2H >X (4) Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Alerted and explained as any 15+ hcp. > >(2) Alerted and explained as any negative (in response > to a later supplementary question information that > "negative" could be 15 hcp if those hcp consisted > of one king, four queens and four jacks). > >(3) Alerted and explained as 15-18 hcp balanced or > semi-balanced, with the possibility of two > doubletons or a singleton. Also explained that a > heart stopper was neither promised nor denied. > >==== snap ==== > >I interpreted that as 1NT essentially being an artificial >catch-all bid that might even have a singleton in hearts. > >Of course Alain's interpretation is possible, too. >Only Richard knows ;-). Richard Hills: The description "balanced or semi-balanced" is not synonymous with Thomas Dehn's off-kilter paraphrase "artificial catch-all". Yes, the 1NT rebid could contain a singleton heart, but only with 15-18 hcp when the shape was exactly 4=1=4=4* (for example, with 5=1=3=4 and 15-18 hcp the rebid would have been 1S). So yes, in theory Hashmat Ali was risking a penalty double when the opponents might have held an 11-card trump fit. In practice that risk was minimal; our opponents (like most Canberra semi-experts) would have been aggressively reaching the three- or four-level with a big trump fit. The point of this story parallels the point of Marvin French's appeal; Directors and Appeals Committees should not rush to judgement about a pair's explicit and implicit partnership understandings, since there is a rare maverick pair whose methods differ from the herd. Best wishes Richard Hills * With that shape a takeout double was not available, since in our excessively super-scientific methods a double of 1H would be 19+ hcp artificial. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 23:13:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:13:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D66589F.8000206@skynet.be> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >>>During the auction North makes a call/bid and South alerts >>>it. East does not ask and considers his action. West >>>then asks for an explication of the alert. After he is >>>told that he can only ask when it is his turn to bid, his >>>partner (belatedly) asks for an explanation. >>> >>>(Variation: East has a bidding card in his hand, has >>>started to withdraw it from the bidding box - or has >>>withdrawn it but has not shown it.) >>> >>>It seems to me logical that he should not be allowed to >>>ask but I don't know if this can be supported by the TBR >>>(?16B?) Opinions of blmlers? >>> >>>Ciao, JE Ton Kooijman: >>ho, ho, ho >> >>Read L20G1: it is improper to ask a question solely for >>partner's benefit. >> >>And this case seems to be one where the TD might decide >>that East is doing so. >> >>ton Herman De Wael: >Not necessarily, Ton. > >West has already shown that he is interested in the meaning. > >So East can no longer tell West that the meaning might be >interesting. > >Rather, West was asking for the benefit of East, and that is >forbidden, and it means East has received UI that he cannot >act upon. Richard Hills: Yes, I disagree with Ton and agree with Herman. Law 20G1 is not the relevant Law. Instead the relevant Laws are -> Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his ***memory***, calculation or technique." Law 73B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, ***extraneous remarks*** or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them." Richard Hills: West's extraneous remark prompted East's memory of South's alert of North's call. Jeff Easterson's desired outcome of prohibiting a question by East is not permitted; Law 20F1 gives East a right to ask a question about North's call if East has a demonstrable bridge reason for that question. However ... Because of the Law 40C3(a) and Law 73B1 infractions by West, at the end of play the Director may adjust the score if the Director deems that East would have chosen a different call if East had continued to believe North's call had not been alerted, and East's different call would consequently have given the non-offending side a better result. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 24 23:41:56 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:41:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CDA25221502D74-1294-35D2@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: General Sherman (1820-1891), on whether to become President: "I will not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected." Alain Gottcheiner: >>x Jxx >>AJx KQx >>xx AKTxx >>AKQxxxx xx >> >>1C (1) 2D (2) >>3C 3H >>4H 5C (3) >>6C >> >>(1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) >>(2) game force, could be an indifferent suit >>(3) after tempo >> >>West's argument for bidding 6C: "the absence of a 4S bid was >>good news. Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". >> >>Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? Paul Lamford: >No, and a PP for the 6C bid. Richard Hills: I agree. In my extensive experience a hesitation after a non- Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-minor is equal to a Hesitation Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-major. In both cases the demonstrable suggestion (although not necessarily the actual reason) is that the hesitator holds extra undisclosed values. And on the methods used and the auction given I strongly doubt that 6C was the only logical alternative. Two aces are missing if East holds: QTx KQx KQJTx JT Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 25 03:55:25 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:55:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <344BD7BB-6AD0-4891-BFDF-BE054FF50F76@starpower.net> Message-ID: ACBL Law 40B2(a) regulation, pages 136-137 of 2008 Lawbook: Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card. a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament Director. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change its basic system.) b. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review its opponents' convention card and alter its defenses against the opponents' special understandings and preemptive bids. This must be announced to its opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these defensive alterations. Eric Landau: >Short of expecting players at the table to mind-read "the >opinion of the RA" [L40B1(a)], how is a pair who would like >to agree to a particular defense against a particular >opponent's (non-preemptive) methods to distinguish between a >"special understanding" that the RA has not chosen to >disallow, restrict or attach any special conditions to the >use of and an "ordinary" understanding that isn't "special"? Law 40B1(b), second sentence: A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning. Richard Hills: But if either side is still in doubt as to whether or not this particular ACBL regulation is applicable to their particular circumstances, then the Director can be summoned for a ruling. Law 81B - The Director - Restrictions and Responsibilities: 1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer. 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Best WTPishes Richard Hills At last January's Summer Festival of Bridge, in one match of the Swiss Matchpoint Pairs the Ali-Hills partnership played against a Protected Pair. Therefore the Director advised us before the start of the match that we had to temporarily delete our Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids from our methods. Thus handicapped by our inability to launch artificial preempts, the Ali-Hills partnership scored its only maximum 25 vp win of the event. :-) :-) Questions for Herman De Wael: We temporarily defined opening bids of 2H, 2S and 2NT as non-systemic. Did that make our system intrinsically illegal? Or would our system only become illegal if one of us opened, for example, 2S? Or would our system be legal if the non-systemic 2S opening was not artificial, made holding a 6-card spade suit and 5-9 hcp? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Feb 25 09:16:42 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:16:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <8CDA25221502D74-1294-35D2@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: 2011/2/24 : > General Sherman (1820-1891), on whether to become President: > > "I will not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected." > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>>x ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Jxx >>>AJx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?KQx >>>xx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AKTxx >>>AKQxxxx ? ? ? ? ? ?xx >>> >>>1C (1) ? ? ? ? ? ? 2D (2) >>>3C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3H >>>4H ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 5C (3) >>>6C >>> >>>(1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) >>>(2) game force, could be an indifferent suit >>>(3) after tempo >>> >>>West's argument for bidding 6C: "the absence of a 4S bid was >>>good news. Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". >>> >>>Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? > > Paul Lamford: > >>No, and a PP for the 6C bid. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree. ?In my extensive experience a hesitation after a non- > Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-minor is equal to a Hesitation > Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-major. ?In both cases the > demonstrable suggestion (although not necessarily the actual > reason) is that the hesitator holds extra undisclosed values. > > And on the methods used and the auction given I strongly doubt > that 6C was the only logical alternative. ?Two aces are missing > if East holds: > > QTx > KQx > KQJTx > JT Is that holding really possible? Wouldn't this hand bid 4NT (natural) over 3C ? > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Section > Specialist Recruitment Team > Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. ?See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 25 09:25:37 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:25:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills > > At last January's Summer Festival of Bridge, in one match of > the Swiss Matchpoint Pairs the Ali-Hills partnership played > against a Protected Pair. Therefore the Director advised us > before the start of the match that we had to temporarily > delete our Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids from our methods. Thus > handicapped by our inability to launch artificial preempts, > the Ali-Hills partnership scored its only maximum 25 vp win > of the event. > > :-) :-) > > Questions for Herman De Wael: We temporarily defined opening > bids of 2H, 2S and 2NT as non-systemic. Did that make our > system intrinsically illegal? Or would our system only > become illegal if one of us opened, for example, 2S? Or > would our system be legal if the non-systemic 2S opening was > not artificial, made holding a 6-card spade suit and 5-9 hcp? > As I stated in my previous answer to your previous post on this subject, I could not envisage that someone would willingly leave a hole in their system. You have come up with an example in which I do see that holes are possible. However: if you do leave a hole: "we have no openings of 2S" and you do then, after all, open 2S, your explanation is manifestly wrong. The statement "I do not know what he has" may well be true, but should be dismissed as self-serving. Who can prove, after all, that you do not have a meta-agreement saying "if I open something in a hole, then I have ...". Thus, I would not accept the non-explanation and rule a misinformation, based on your system actually being something that includes what you just opened. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 25 10:11:06 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:11:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D67722A.1060106@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/02/2011 23:41, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > General Sherman (1820-1891), on whether to become President: > > "I will not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected." > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >>> x Jxx >>> AJx KQx >>> xx AKTxx >>> AKQxxxx xx >>> >>> 1C (1) 2D (2) >>> 3C 3H >>> 4H 5C (3) >>> 6C >>> >>> (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) >>> (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit >>> (3) after tempo >>> >>> West's argument for bidding 6C: "the absence of a 4S bid was >>> good news. Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". >>> >>> Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? > Paul Lamford: > >> No, and a PP for the 6C bid. > Richard Hills: > > I agree. In my extensive experience a hesitation after a non- > Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-minor is equal to a Hesitation > Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-major. In both cases the > demonstrable suggestion (although not necessarily the actual > reason) is that the hesitator holds extra undisclosed values. > > And on the methods used and the auction given I strongly doubt > that 6C was the only logical alternative. Two aces are missing > if East holds: > > QTx > KQx > KQJTx > JT AG :agree, but this would constitute a 3NT bid over 3C (12+ and 5D already shown, remember). But I suppose one could find other hands ... In fact, my intent when creating the problem (yes, I lied ...) was to chack whether one is allowed to use system logic after the hesitation; 3H shows either spade weakness or strong slam ambitions. The latter is excluded by the 5C bid. Whence partner has weak spades. Apparently, you and others judge that one isn't allowed to use such inferences after the hesitation. Duly noted and usable from now on. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 25 10:27:55 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:27:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/02/2011 9:25, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Richard Hills >> >> At last January's Summer Festival of Bridge, in one match of >> the Swiss Matchpoint Pairs the Ali-Hills partnership played >> against a Protected Pair. Therefore the Director advised us >> before the start of the match that we had to temporarily >> delete our Brown Sticker RCO Two Bids from our methods. Thus >> handicapped by our inability to launch artificial preempts, >> the Ali-Hills partnership scored its only maximum 25 vp win >> of the event. >> >> :-) :-) >> >> Questions for Herman De Wael: We temporarily defined opening >> bids of 2H, 2S and 2NT as non-systemic. Did that make our >> system intrinsically illegal? Or would our system only >> become illegal if one of us opened, for example, 2S? Or >> would our system be legal if the non-systemic 2S opening was >> not artificial, made holding a 6-card spade suit and 5-9 hcp? >> > As I stated in my previous answer to your previous post on this subject, > I could not envisage that someone would willingly leave a hole in their > system. You have come up with an example in which I do see that holes > are possible. > > However: if you do leave a hole: "we have no openings of 2S" and you do > then, after all, open 2S, your explanation is manifestly wrong. The > statement "I do not know what he has" may well be true, but should be > dismissed as self-serving. Who can prove, after all, that you do not > have a meta-agreement saying "if I open something in a hole, then I have > ...". Thus, I would not accept the non-explanation and rule a > misinformation, based on your system actually being something that > includes what you just opened. > AG : if I bid 1NT - 2D - 5C, do you consider as self-serving the argument that this bid doesn't exist ? Do you pretend, against all bidding logic, that is does ? Or would you rather consider that something extraneous to system happened ? (examples : 1NT was a mispull, 5C is a mispull, I found AK of clubs back etc.) From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 25 10:41:13 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 10:41:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 25/02/2011 9:25, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> >> However: if you do leave a hole: "we have no openings of 2S" and you do >> then, after all, open 2S, your explanation is manifestly wrong. The >> statement "I do not know what he has" may well be true, but should be >> dismissed as self-serving. Who can prove, after all, that you do not >> have a meta-agreement saying "if I open something in a hole, then I have >> ...". Thus, I would not accept the non-explanation and rule a >> misinformation, based on your system actually being something that >> includes what you just opened. >> > AG : if I bid 1NT - 2D - 5C, do you consider as self-serving the > argument that this bid doesn't exist ? Do you pretend, against all > bidding logic, that is does ? The cases are not even similar. Richard is opening at the two-level, you are jumping to five. Richard opened, you jumped. Your example is manifestly a hole - nothing can be envisaged that would warrant a contract of 5C _and_ be opened 1NT. Richard's is only a hole because he says it is. In bidding logic, your bid does not exist. But Richard's does. He has the hand, and it conforms to his previous bidding. Your hand cannot correspond to the 1NT opening. Herman. > Or would you rather consider that something extraneous to system happened ? > (examples : 1NT was a mispull, 5C is a mispull, I found AK of clubs back > etc.) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3466 - Release Date: 02/24/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 25 11:10:55 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:10:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D67802F.7010806@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/02/2011 10:41, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 25/02/2011 9:25, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> However: if you do leave a hole: "we have no openings of 2S" and you do >>> then, after all, open 2S, your explanation is manifestly wrong. The >>> statement "I do not know what he has" may well be true, but should be >>> dismissed as self-serving. Who can prove, after all, that you do not >>> have a meta-agreement saying "if I open something in a hole, then I have >>> ...". Thus, I would not accept the non-explanation and rule a >>> misinformation, based on your system actually being something that >>> includes what you just opened. >>> >> AG : if I bid 1NT - 2D - 5C, do you consider as self-serving the >> argument that this bid doesn't exist ? Do you pretend, against all >> bidding logic, that is does ? > The cases are not even similar. Richard is opening at the two-level, you > are jumping to five. Richard opened, you jumped. Your example is > manifestly a hole - nothing can be envisaged that would warrant a > contract of 5C _and_ be opened 1NT. Richard's is only a hole because he > says it is. > In bidding logic, your bid does not exist. But Richard's does. He has > the hand, and it conforms to his previous bidding. Your hand cannot > correspond to the 1NT opening. Why ? Just because you say that it can't ? What if I just wanted to pull 3C ? I understand the way you want to rule, but you will have to find some stronger argument, because if you say that written testimony on the CC isn't sufficient, you'll have to change all "misbid" to MI decisions. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 25 11:16:57 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:16:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D67802F.7010806@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> <4D67802F.7010806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D678199.3010206@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > I understand the way you want to rule, but you will have to find some > stronger argument, because if you say that written testimony on the CC > isn't sufficient, you'll have to change all "misbid" to MI decisions. > That isn't what I was saying, and it also was. Written testimony isn't sufficient, no, indeed not. But that does not mean ALL misbids will have to be changed to MI. If the written testimony is backed up by bridge (il-)logic, that may be deemed enough. As in your case. But when the written testimony ("we never open 2S") is contradicted by the actual bid ("2S"), then the written testimony will not be deemed enough. As in Richard's case. Don't make me say something I haven't said. or if you make me say something I have said, don't draw the wrong conclusion from it. Saying something isn't sufficient doesn't imply that it will be always discarded. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Fri Feb 25 12:06:25 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:06:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D67722A.1060106@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D67722A.1060106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <663021058.529347.1298631985413.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Le 24/02/2011 23:41, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > General Sherman (1820-1891), on whether to become President: > > > > "I will not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected." > > > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > > >>> x Jxx > >>> AJx KQx > >>> xx AKTxx > >>> AKQxxxx xx > >>> > >>> 1C (1) 2D (2) > >>> 3C 3H > >>> 4H 5C (3) > >>> 6C > >>> > >>> (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) > >>> (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit > >>> (3) after tempo > >>> > >>> West's argument for bidding 6C: "the absence of a 4S bid was > >>> good news. Over 4S, I would have bid only 5C". > >>> > >>> Do you accept that or do you consider it self-serving ? > > Paul Lamford: > > > >> No, and a PP for the 6C bid. > > Richard Hills: > > > > I agree. In my extensive experience a hesitation after a non- > > Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-minor is equal to a Hesitation > > Blackwood signoff in 5-of-a-major. In both cases the > > demonstrable suggestion (although not necessarily the actual > > reason) is that the hesitator holds extra undisclosed values. > > > > And on the methods used and the auction given I strongly doubt > > that 6C was the only logical alternative. Two aces are missing > > if East holds: > > > > QTx > > KQx > > KQJTx > > JT > AG :agree, but this would constitute a 3NT bid over 3C (12+ and 5D > already shown, remember). > But I suppose one could find other hands ... > > In fact, my intent when creating the problem (yes, I lied ...) was to > chack whether one is allowed to use system logic after the hesitation; > > 3H shows either spade weakness or strong slam ambitions. > The latter is excluded by the 5C bid. > Whence partner has weak spades. > > Apparently, you and others judge that one isn't allowed to use such > inferences after the hesitation. You are allowed to use inferences from system logic after a hesitation. However, you still are not allowed to make a bid "demonstrably" suggested by the UI if there exists a logical alternative not suggested by the UI. Worded differently, the "system logic" argument holds water only if it is strong enough to make passing 5C not an LA (assuming all the other conditions are met). Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 25 12:14:51 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:14:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D678199.3010206@skynet.be> References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> <4D67802F.7010806@ulb.ac.be> <4D678199.3010206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D678F2B.3020107@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/02/2011 11:16, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> I understand the way you want to rule, but you will have to find some >> stronger argument, because if you say that written testimony on the CC >> isn't sufficient, you'll have to change all "misbid" to MI decisions. >> > That isn't what I was saying, and it also was. > Written testimony isn't sufficient, no, indeed not. > But that does not mean ALL misbids will have to be changed to MI. > If the written testimony is backed up by bridge (il-)logic, that may be > deemed enough. As in your case. > But when the written testimony ("we never open 2S") is contradicted by > the actual bid ("2S"), then the written testimony will not be deemed > enough. As in Richard's case. Problem is, in the case when you said wasn't similar (1NT - 2D - 5C), written testimony is contradicted by the facts too. So what's the difference ? Or say they play a relay system, when somebody who has shown some (exactly) 64 two-suiter is asked to describe his holding in steps (four of them), and answers by using the 6th step ; the system notes say there are only four. Evidence is that the player misunderstood his system notes, or cannot count up to 4, not that he plays something else. > Don't make me say something I haven't said. > or if you make me say something I have said, don't draw the wrong > conclusion from it. > Saying something isn't sufficient doesn't imply that it will be always > discarded. > No, it just says that you need to complete it, most probably by finding some efficient distinction. That's what I challenge you to do, bearing in mind the relay case. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 25 13:48:18 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:48:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D678F2B.3020107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> <4D67802F.7010806@ulb.ac.be> <4D678199.3010206@skynet.be> <4D678F2B.3020107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D67A512.5020209@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > Problem is, in the case when you said wasn't similar (1NT - 2D - 5C), > written testimony is contradicted by the facts too. > So what's the difference ? > > Or say they play a relay system, when somebody who has shown some > (exactly) 64 two-suiter is asked to describe his holding in steps (four > of them), and answers by using the 6th step ; the system notes say there > are only four. > Evidence is that the player misunderstood his system notes, or cannot > count up to 4, not that he plays something else. >> Don't make me say something I haven't said. >> or if you make me say something I have said, don't draw the wrong >> conclusion from it. >> Saying something isn't sufficient doesn't imply that it will be always >> discarded. >> > No, it just says that you need to complete it, most probably by finding > some efficient distinction. That's what I challenge you to do, bearing > in mind the relay case. > I guess the difference is in what the other bbids mean. In your first example, there is a set of possible answers, and all of these together encompass the full 1NT opening. The same is true for yout second example: the four answers together make a full set, and the other one isn't in there. Now maybe this is also true of the 2S opening, but I feel that there is a difference there, because the full set of other openings is not defined to be 100% precise. FI, pass is not defined as 0-9, without any overlaps and holes. Anyway, it all depends as well on the reason for the deviation. You mentioned for the 5C some extra ace, making the hand fall outside the 1NT-opening. You did not mention a reason for the 6th step, but it might be simply forgetting the relays. OTOH Richard has no such explanation "I was doing something psychic". > > > Best regards > > Alain > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3466 - Release Date: 02/24/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From wrgptfan at gmail.com Fri Feb 25 18:47:01 2011 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:47:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2011, at 4:41, Herman De Wael wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 25/02/2011 9:25, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >>> However: if you do leave a hole: "we have no openings of 2S" and you do >>> then, after all, open 2S, your explanation is manifestly wrong. The >>> statement "I do not know what he has" may well be true, but should be >>> dismissed as self-serving. Who can prove, after all, that you do not >>> have a meta-agreement saying "if I open something in a hole, then I have >>> ...". Thus, I would not accept the non-explanation and rule a >>> misinformation, based on your system actually being something that >>> includes what you just opened. >>> >> AG : if I bid 1NT - 2D - 5C, do you consider as self-serving the >> argument that this bid doesn't exist ? Do you pretend, against all >> bidding logic, that is does ? > > The cases are not even similar. Richard is opening at the two-level, you > are jumping to five. Richard opened, you jumped. Your example is > manifestly a hole - nothing can be envisaged that would warrant a > contract of 5C _and_ be opened 1NT. Richard's is only a hole because he > says it is. > In bidding logic, your bid does not exist. But Richard's does. He has > the hand, and it conforms to his previous bidding. Your hand cannot > correspond to the 1NT opening. > > Herman. I can envisage a 5C bid in this situation. Suppose you hold AQx Kxxxx Ax Kxx. You open a happy 1NT and pard transfers to hearts. You check your hand and find you actually have AKQxxx Kxxxx Ax void. Exclusion seems called for here. > >> Or would you rather consider that something extraneous to system happened ? >> (examples : 1NT was a mispull, 5C is a mispull, I found AK of clubs back >> etc.) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3466 - Release Date: 02/24/11 20:34:00 >> > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 25 20:12:34 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:12:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism Message-ID: <5D0E5135-2D77-4875-B7C9-46FC0A318D1C@starpower.net> Note to all: The paragraph cited below was accidentally sent privately to Alain, and (accidentally?) replied to privately. I intended it to go to the forum, and assume Alain did as well. Alain reproduces it in full (albeit without the earlier citations in my original post). Note to Alain: Some of your posts to the group (correctly) have the group address in the reply-to field, but some of them have your personal address, which causes posts sent via the "reply" option to be misrouted (this is the third time it has happened to me). Please deal with this. On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 22/02/2011 22:08, Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Trump-stack, no-trump-stack, shmo-trump-stack, what does it >> matter? Only rank beginners, IME, have (implicit) partnership >> understandings that penalty doubles promise trump stacks. My >> (hypothetical for this discussion) partnership has no agreement, >> explicit or implicit, regarding trump stacks or lack thereof for >> penalty doubles. Our agreement is *we double any time we think >> our matchpoint expectation will be maximized by defending the >> opponents' contract doubled*. So I ask again, what's to disclose? > > Perhaps the fact that your doubles are based on expectation rather > than near-certainty, as other play it. > The fact that you're right on pure mathematical bases doesn't make > your view popular. An opponent contemplating a sacrifice may want to know whether we believe in finessing queens or playing to drop them in nine-card trump fits, but I don't think I am obligated to tell them, and I don't see how that's any different. Surely it is a "matter[] generally known to bridge players" [L40B6(a)] that higher expected scores are better than lower expected scores, and, just as surely, one's ability to estimate the expected scores that are likely to result from alternative actions is the essence of what we call "skill". We can debate the extent to which the disclosure rules obligate us to "teach bridge" to our opponents (and I'm one who comes down hard on the side of more liberal disclosure in those debates), but surely we have no obligation to teach them probability theory or arithmetic. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 26 23:52:36 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:52:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> Message-ID: <08E818D00D494EC58BD4183D8858C901@Thain> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <4D664D17.9000107@aol.com> <00c501cbd41e$7086c920$51945b60$@nl> <001901cbd421$561a13f0$024e3bd0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4D69A0A9.2040706@nhcc.net> > During the auction North makes a call/bid > and South alerts it. East does not ask and > considers his action. West then asks... On 2/24/2011 7:49 AM, ton wrote: > Read L20G1: it is improper to ask a question solely for partner?s benefit. I like this, but the "only" might be a stumbling block. L73B1 seems better to me. I don't think there can be any doubt that illegal communication has taken place, but it may be a difficult judgment what its effect has been. My original thought was that L16B couldn't be used, but it may depend on the exact sequence of events. If South answers _West's_ question, the answer appears to be unauthorized because nothing in L16A makes it AI so far as I can tell. However, if instead East himself asks, and South answers, the answer does seem to be AI. I find this interpretation very odd, so maybe there's something wrong with it. L73C is another interesting idea, but it doesn't kick in unless "a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner," and that's one of the things that isn't clear to me. That is to say, if there's UI, we don't need 73C, and if there isn't, it doesn't apply. One way or another, we seem to be headed towards an adjusted score, but it would be nice to know the exact route. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 27 03:59:49 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:59:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D69A0A9.2040706@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott During the auction North makes a call/bid > and South alerts it. East does not ask and > considers his action. West then asks... On 2/24/2011 7:49 AM, ton wrote: > Read L20G1: it is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit. I like this, but the "only" might be a stumbling block. L73B1 seems better to me. I don't think there can be any doubt that illegal communication has taken place, but it may be a difficult judgment what its effect has been. My original thought was that L16B couldn't be used, but it may depend on the exact sequence of events. If South answers _West's_ question, the answer appears to be unauthorized because nothing in L16A makes it AI so far as I can tell. However, if instead East himself asks, and South answers, the answer does seem to be AI. I find this interpretation very odd, so maybe there's something wrong with it. L73C is another interesting idea, but it doesn't kick in unless "a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner," and that's one of the things that isn't clear to me. That is to say, if there's UI, we don't need 73C, and if there isn't, it doesn't apply. One way or another, we seem to be headed towards an adjusted score, but it would be nice to know the exact route. ....................................................... +=+ Illegal communication has occurred. This is a violation of Law 73B1. If the Director judges that the illegal communication has caused the opponents to be damaged Law 12A1 applies. Whether or not there is such damage the violation of correct procedure empowers the Director to decide whether to exercise the discretion given him in Law 90A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 28 02:00:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:00:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D67722A.1060106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >>Imps >>Dlr: West >>Vul: North-South >> >>x QTx >>AJx KQx >>xx KQJTx >>AKQxxxx JT >> >>1C (1) 2D (2) >>3C ? >> >>(1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) >>(2) game force, could be an indifferent suit >>(3) What call does Alain make? Alain Gottcheiner: >AG :agree, but this would constitute a 3NT bid over 3C (12+ >and 5D already shown, remember). Richard Hills: On this lie of the cards 3NT needs the jack of spades onside (or both the ace and the king of spades held by the opening leader); so 5C is much superior, needing only no 5-1 diamond break. Therefore in the Master Solvers' Club of The Bridge World, I would expect more votes for a descriptive 3H than a unilateral 3NT. Alain Gottcheiner: >In fact, my intent when creating the problem (yes, I lied) >was to chack whether one is allowed to use system logic >after the hesitation; >..... >Apparently, you and others judge that one isn't allowed to >use such inferences after the hesitation. >..... Richard Hills: If the phrase "system logic" is properly used, as in Marvin French's case where his unusual system meant that removing Alice's penalty double was Marv's only logical alternative, then the answer is Yes. But the phrase "system logic" is drearily frequent in its improper use at Appeals Committee hearings. A player points out that he would "always" choose a particular call because of an inference from "system logic". But that is irrelevant; the Law 16 question is whether a peer of that player, using the same methods, would draw a different inference and select a different call. Not a constructed hand, and no lies -> Butler Pairs, imps scored against an Olympic datum Dlr: East Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Ali Hills --- --- --- 1S (1) 3C (2) Pass(3) Pass ? (4) (1) Promising 10-14 hcp and at least five spades (2) Old-fashioned pre-empt with long clubs (not Ghestem) (3) Partnership style is to almost always avoid a Trap Pass (4) Partnership style is to almost always avoid re-opening I, Richard Hills, held: KJ76543 K KT A82 I would "always" violate the general Ali-Hills partnership style here and reopen with 3S, due to maximum strength (14 hcp) and maximum spade length (7 cards), given that it is an explicit Ali-Hills understanding to open 1S with a grotty 10 hcp and a grotty five card suit. The inference from "system logic" is that I "must" disclose my "huge" extra values. But once Hashmat Ali broke tempo before passing, demonstrably suggesting that violating partnership style would be more successful than passing out 3C, I had to consider whether 3S was the only logical alternative. I concluded that if Hashmat held a spade void (which I now knew was not the case, or else Hashmat would not have hesitated) I needed the spade ten replacing the spade three to make 3S a safe reopening. So at the table I did pass out 3C, scoring +50 in defence instead of +620 declaring 4S. Was I a holier-than-thou masochist (3S was the only logical alternative)? Or was I an abider of Laws 16B and 73C (Pass was a call that I personally would never-ever have voluntarily chosen, but was a logical alternative call which would have been chosen by some of my peers)? Thoms Dehn: >>>Given the partnership style I'd pass, but I would >>>consider 3S. Best wishes Richard Hills Recruitment Section Specialist Recruitment Team Level 5 Aqua, workstation W569, 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 28 08:02:21 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:02:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Richard Hills Letter to the Editor, ABF Newsletter May 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/newsletter/ Richard Hills: The March 2011 ABF Newsletter published a lengthy Letter to the Editor about appeals by Charles Klassen. These are my answers to some of his key points. Charles Klassen: We all recognise that the appeals process is flawed, and many players won't bother to appeal, accepting a director's decision with the same supine stoicism as a six - nil trump break ? it may be outrageous, but nothing can be done about it. Richard Hills: This begs the question, petitio principii. There are far fewer outrageous Directors' decisions than there were a decade ago. Thanks to the wonders of the world wide web, Directors who wish to improve their skills can visit the Australian Bridge Directors Association forum at http://www.abda.org.au/forum/index.php or the Bridge Laws Mailing List at http://www.rtflb.org/ Charles Klassen: The problems of appeals are manifold and complex; similar to those in wider society; people are reluctant to serve on Appeals Committees (as on juries) and many are unfamiliar with the complexities of the laws, have limited understanding of deliberative, judicial procedures, allowing personal prejudices to override cool analysis, let alone detached dispassionate judgements. In local clubs, when an appeal is held, panellists can naturally develop a hostile siege mentality; closing ranks to protect the director against any attack by an impertinent player. Appellants are not held in high regard but quickly smeared as "troublemakers" to be browbeaten into submission. In national events, much the same attitude persists. Richard Hills: I disagree with Charles Klassen's last sentence. I do not know whether the Directors and/or the Appeals Committee in Charles Klassen's local club act in the way that Charles suggests. But my three decades of semi-expert experience playing in Aussie national events proves that the better trained the Director and the Chair of Appeals Committees, the fewer the violations of due process and natural justice. For example, at the January 2011 South West Pacific Teams, two of the leading teams in the hunt for qualification were involved in an appeal. To ensure that the Appeals Committee was Caesar's wife, the Appeals Convenor (Richard Grenside) selected an expert panel whose teams had no chance of qualifying. As a member of that Appeals Committee I can report that the majority did not smear the appellant as a "troublemaker", but instead over-ruled the Directors. Best wishes Richard Hills Co-author of the Index to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 28 09:14:49 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:14:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > One way or another, we seem to be headed towards an > adjusted score, but it would be nice to know the exact > route. > ....................................................... > +=+ Illegal communication has occurred. This is a > violation of Law 73B1. If the Director judges that > the illegal communication has caused the opponents > to be damaged Law 12A1 applies. Whether or not > there is such damage the violation of correct > procedure empowers the Director to decide whether > to exercise the discretion given him in Law 90A. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I think this answer is too vague. We need to find a ruling under L16, and I think we can do that. While it is not an offence by East to ask the question again, it is an offence if, after the answer, he chooses a different call than the one he would originally have chosen if he hadn't asked the question. The UI (West asking) has led to the call made, and by L16 we can turn that back to the call otherwise made. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 28 09:58:31 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:58:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > ....................................................... > > +=+ Illegal communication has occurred. This is a > > violation of Law 73B1. If the Director judges that the illegal > > communication has caused the opponents to be damaged Law 12A1 applies. > > Whether or not there is such damage the violation of correct procedure > > empowers the Director to decide whether to exercise the discretion > > given him in Law 90A. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I think this answer is too vague. We need to find a ruling under L16, and I think we > can do that. While it is not an offence by East to ask the question again, it is an > offence if, after the answer, he chooses a different call than the one he would > originally have chosen if he hadn't asked the question. The UI (West asking) has > led to the call made, and by L16 we can turn that back to the call otherwise made. >From Law 16B (UI received from partner): "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, ..... , the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". Illegal communication has occurred; there is no doubt about that. But does the UI passed demonstrably suggest any particular call? No, it (only) suggests that partner asks about the alerted call. So I agree with Grattan that we must stick to Law 73B1 and forget about law 16B in this case. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 28 10:36:03 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:36:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D676781.9040602@skynet.be> <4D67761B.6080907@ulb.ac.be> <4D677939.70408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6B6C83.5050700@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/02/2011 18:47, David Kent a ?crit : > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 25, 2011, at 4:41, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> Le 25/02/2011 9:25, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>>> However: if you do leave a hole: "we have no openings of 2S" and you do >>>> then, after all, open 2S, your explanation is manifestly wrong. The >>>> statement "I do not know what he has" may well be true, but should be >>>> dismissed as self-serving. Who can prove, after all, that you do not >>>> have a meta-agreement saying "if I open something in a hole, then I have >>>> ...". Thus, I would not accept the non-explanation and rule a >>>> misinformation, based on your system actually being something that >>>> includes what you just opened. >>>> >>> AG : if I bid 1NT - 2D - 5C, do you consider as self-serving the >>> argument that this bid doesn't exist ? Do you pretend, against all >>> bidding logic, that is does ? >> The cases are not even similar. Richard is opening at the two-level, you >> are jumping to five. Richard opened, you jumped. Your example is >> manifestly a hole - nothing can be envisaged that would warrant a >> contract of 5C _and_ be opened 1NT. Richard's is only a hole because he >> says it is. >> In bidding logic, your bid does not exist. But Richard's does. He has >> the hand, and it conforms to his previous bidding. Your hand cannot >> correspond to the 1NT opening. >> >> Herman. > I can envisage a 5C bid in this situation. Suppose you hold AQx Kxxxx Ax Kxx. You open a happy 1NT and pard transfers to hearts. You check your hand and find you actually have AKQxxx Kxxxx Ax void. Exclusion seems called for here. > AG : of course one can envisage it. What I'm against is to pretend that, because it has been made, it is forcedly part of the system. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 28 10:58:36 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:58:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D6B71CC.9090402@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/02/2011 2:00, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> Imps >>> Dlr: West >>> Vul: North-South >>> >>> x QTx >>> AJx KQx >>> xx KQJTx >>> AKQxxxx JT >>> >>> 1C (1) 2D (2) >>> 3C ? >>> >>> (1) Polish style. Upgraded to 16-count (lesser hands open 2C) >>> (2) game force, could be an indifferent suit >>> (3) What call does Alain make? > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG :agree, but this would constitute a 3NT bid over 3C (12+ >> and 5D already shown, remember). > Richard Hills: > > On this lie of the cards 3NT needs the jack of spades onside > (or both the ace and the king of spades held by the opening > leader); so 5C is much superior, needing only no 5-1 diamond > break. Therefore in the Master Solvers' Club of The Bridge > World, I would expect more votes for a descriptive 3H than a > unilateral 3NT. Pardon me, those are two different things. The facf that 3NT is the right bid on East's hand doesn't mean that 3NT will be the final contract. > Dlr: East > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Ali Hills > --- --- --- 1S (1) > 3C (2) Pass(3) Pass ? (4) > > (1) Promising 10-14 hcp and at least five spades > (2) Old-fashioned pre-empt with long clubs (not Ghestem) > (3) Partnership style is to almost always avoid a Trap Pass > (4) Partnership style is to almost always avoid re-opening > > I, Richard Hills, held: > > KJ76543 > K > KT > A82 > > I would "always" violate the general Ali-Hills partnership > style here and reopen with 3S, due to maximum strength (14 > hcp) and maximum spade length (7 cards), given that it is an > explicit Ali-Hills understanding to open 1S with a grotty 10 > hcp and a grotty five card suit. The inference from "system > logic" is that I "must" disclose my "huge" extra values. > > But once Hashmat Ali broke tempo before passing, demonstrably > suggesting that violating partnership style would be more > successful than passing out 3C, I had to consider whether 3S > was the only logical alternative. I concluded that if > Hashmat held a spade void (which I now knew was not the case, > or else Hashmat would not have hesitated) I needed the spade > ten replacing the spade three to make 3S a safe reopening. > > So at the table I did pass out 3C, scoring +50 in defence > instead of +620 declaring 4S. Was I a holier-than-thou > masochist (3S was the only logical alternative)? Or was I > an abider of Laws 16B and 73C (Pass was a call that I > personally would never-ever have voluntarily chosen, but was > a logical alternative call which would have been chosen by > some of my peers)? The test here is very difficult, because you've few peers, i.e. other players with the same "non-reopening" agreements. However, I don't understand the problem. 3C was a skip bid, true , Partner hesitated ? So what ? He had to. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 28 12:07:36 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:07:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> Message-ID: <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Illegal communication has occurred; there is no doubt about that. But does > the UI passed demonstrably suggest any particular call? No, it (only) > suggests that partner asks about the alerted call. > Well, and the information that he receives may suggest the call he eventually makes. This kind of stepwise information is nothing particular to this case. When a player thinks, that in itself does not suggest a particular call by partner. It is only the deduction "why does partner think - he must have X" that creates the suggestion. So there is nothing wrong in considering that West's asking of the question, followed by East's asking of the same question, followed by an answer, suggests the call that East eventually makes. Which is why I would strongly suggest to East that he does not ask the same question. > So I agree with Grattan that we must stick to Law 73B1 and forget about law > 16B in this case. > And if you forget about L16B, how then are you going to rule? L73 is well and good, but it does not contain a penalty clause. L16B does. Remember that you can only rule concerning LAs when using L16B. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3472 - Release Date: 02/27/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 28 12:17:06 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:17:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > > Illegal communication has occurred; there is no doubt about that. But > > does the UI passed demonstrably suggest any particular call? No, it > > (only) suggests that partner asks about the alerted call. > > > > Well, and the information that he receives may suggest the call he eventually > makes. > This kind of stepwise information is nothing particular to this case. > When a player thinks, that in itself does not suggest a particular call by partner. It > is only the deduction "why does partner think - he must have X" that creates the > suggestion. > So there is nothing wrong in considering that West's asking of the question, > followed by East's asking of the same question, followed by an answer, suggests > the call that East eventually makes. This IMHO is stretching it much too far. > > Which is why I would strongly suggest to East that he does not ask the same > question. > > > So I agree with Grattan that we must stick to Law 73B1 and forget > > about law 16B in this case. > > > > And if you forget about L16B, how then are you going to rule? > L73 is well and good, but it does not contain a penalty clause. L16B does. > Remember that you can only rule concerning LAs when using L16B. As Grattan wrote: Law 12A1 However, why can you not reach the same final adjustment in either case? From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 28 12:59:45 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:59:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> Message-ID: <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> >>> Illegal communication has occurred; there is no doubt about that. But >>> does the UI passed demonstrably suggest any particular call? No, it >>> (only) suggests that partner asks about the alerted call. >>> >> >> Well, and the information that he receives may suggest the call he > eventually >> makes. >> This kind of stepwise information is nothing particular to this case. >> When a player thinks, that in itself does not suggest a particular call by > partner. It >> is only the deduction "why does partner think - he must have X" that > creates the >> suggestion. >> So there is nothing wrong in considering that West's asking of the > question, >> followed by East's asking of the same question, followed by an answer, > suggests >> the call that East eventually makes. > > This IMHO is stretching it much too far. Well, it is needed. > >> >> Which is why I would strongly suggest to East that he does not ask the > same >> question. >> >>> So I agree with Grattan that we must stick to Law 73B1 and forget >>> about law 16B in this case. >>> >> >> And if you forget about L16B, how then are you going to rule? >> L73 is well and good, but it does not contain a penalty clause. L16B does. >> Remember that you can only rule concerning LAs when using L16B. > > As Grattan wrote: Law 12A1 > But L12A1 needs an infraction. And if the infraction is only L73, then you cannot be speaking of LAs. L16 goes further than L73. "carefully avoid taking any advantage" is, IMO, less strong than "not take the suggested action if there are LAs to it". "I was always going to ..." is an excuse that can be used against L73, but not against L16. In L16, all the TD needs to do is establish that there was a LA, less suggested than the one that was eventually taken. No need to rule that a player "did not avoid taking advantage". Only needed to rule that an alternative action was a LA. > However, why can you not reach the same final adjustment in either case? > For the reason set out above. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 28 13:34:15 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:34:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ................ > > As Grattan wrote: Law 12A1 > > > > But L12A1 needs an infraction. And if the infraction is only L73, then you cannot > be speaking of LAs. You don't need to. > L16 goes further than L73. > "carefully avoid taking any advantage" is, IMO, less strong than "not take the > suggested action if there are LAs to it". > > "I was always going to ..." is an excuse that can be used against L73, but not > against L16. In L16, all the TD needs to do is establish that there was a LA, less > suggested than the one that was eventually taken. > No need to rule that a player "did not avoid taking advantage". Only needed to > rule that an alternative action was a LA. > > > However, why can you not reach the same final adjustment in either case? > > > > For the reason set out above Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. We have an infraction of Law 73A1 which in itself does not provide indemnity to opponents, so the Director is free to apply law 12A1 at his discretion. Within this application he is free to judge in what way opponents may have been damaged by the infraction and to award a corresponding adjusted score compensating for the amount of damage. Law 16 specifically requires the Director to establish that there has been a suggested choice selected among available logical alternatives, neither Law 73 nor Law 12 contains any such requirement. Law 12A1 only requires the Director to "judge" that there has been damage and the extent of this. (Of course, if the Director judges that the damage is of a nature as specified in Law 16 then fine, but this is not required) From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 28 14:13:08 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:13:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> Message-ID: <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these > Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the > particular type of violation committed by an opponent. > > We have an infraction of Law 73A1 which in itself does not provide indemnity > to opponents, so the Director is free to apply law 12A1 at his discretion. > Within this application he is free to judge in what way opponents may have > been damaged by the infraction and to award a corresponding adjusted score > compensating for the amount of damage. > > Law 16 specifically requires the Director to establish that there has been a > suggested choice selected among available logical alternatives, neither Law > 73 nor Law 12 contains any such requirement. Law 12A1 only requires the > Director to "judge" that there has been damage and the extent of this. (Of > course, if the Director judges that the damage is of a nature as specified > in Law 16 then fine, but this is not required) > So you believe it is easier to judge that a player has "used UI" than it is that he has "not taken a suggested action that was a LA"? Strange. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 28 16:49:41 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:49:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Law 12A1: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that > > these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for > > the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. > > > > We have an infraction of Law 73A1 which in itself does not provide > > indemnity to opponents, so the Director is free to apply law 12A1 at his > discretion. > > Within this application he is free to judge in what way opponents may > > have been damaged by the infraction and to award a corresponding > > adjusted score compensating for the amount of damage. > > > > Law 16 specifically requires the Director to establish that there has > > been a suggested choice selected among available logical alternatives, > > neither Law > > 73 nor Law 12 contains any such requirement. Law 12A1 only requires > > the Director to "judge" that there has been damage and the extent of > > this. (Of course, if the Director judges that the damage is of a > > nature as specified in Law 16 then fine, but this is not required) > > > > So you believe it is easier to judge that a player has "used UI" than it is that he > has "not taken a suggested action that was a LA"? > Strange. I believe you must have overlooked that Law 12 is a more general law than Law 16? In order to apply law 12A1 the Director must establish that a violation of law has occurred and judge that the non-offending side has not received full indemnity for the damage caused by this violation. In order to apply Law 16 the Director must further establish that the violation has been that of selecting a call or a play based on extraneous information received and that the extraneous information demonstrably suggested the selected call or play over other logical alternatives. I have a big problem understanding how a suggestion from a player to his partner that he ought to ask about opponents' auction can be taken to demonstrably suggest one particular call over other logical alternative calls. However, I have no problem seeing that in some cases illegally "awakening" partner like that can "damage" opponents. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 28 22:31:12 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:31:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Do you accept this ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D6B71CC.9090402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Laurence Olivier (1907-1989), English actor: "Acting is a masochistic form of exhibitionism. It is not quite the occupation of an adult." Richard Hills: >>..... >>So at the table I did pass out 3C, scoring +50 in defence >>instead of +620 declaring 4S. Was I a holier-than-thou >>masochist (3S was the only logical alternative)? Or was I an >>abider of Laws 16B and 73C (Pass was a call that I personally >>would never-ever have voluntarily chosen, but was a logical >>alternative call which would have been chosen by some of my >>peers)? Alain Gottcheiner: >The test here is very difficult, because you've few peers, i.e. >other players with the same "non-reopening" agreements. Richard Hills: How many or how few peers I have is not relevant to the main point. There is a common misperception (perhaps shared by some blmlers) that in a Law 16B / Law 73C situation one should simply make the call that one would have "always" made in the absence of UI from partner, letting the Director and Appeals Committee sort out any subsequent mess. Indeed, some decades ago an English player thought he was ethical by firstly selecting a demonstrably suggested logical alternative that he would have "always" made, then secondly summoning the Director against himself. But what that English player had actually done was waste everyone's time and potentially prevented his own side from achieving a better score than that awarded by the Director. One sentence summary: a player is required to select a Law 16B / Law 73C legal call which is not necessarily that player's initial "always" call. Alain Gottcheiner: >However, I don't understand the problem. 3C was a skip bid, >true. Partner hesitated? So what? He had to. Richard Hills: Nitpicking. By "hesitating" I over-succinctly meant that pard's question and later break in tempo was above and beyond the amount allowed after a skip bid. In our very long-standing partnership of two millennia, even the subtlest twitch by Hashmat Ali can be read by me, so my logical alternatives are much more frequently restricted than for most players in most partnerships. (The very long-standing Kaplan- Sheinwold partnership abandoned psyches because Edgar Kaplan "knew in his bones" whenever Alfred Sheinwold had psyched.) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------