From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jun 1 03:19:41 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 21:19:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass 1C(1) 3H 3S >Pass 4H Pass 5C >Pass 6S Pass Pass >Pass >(1) Strong club, 15+ hcp with any shape >Opening lead: Four of hearts >NORTH >AQ87 >AK9 >KJ5 >QT9 >SOUTH >J6532 >T >AQ >A7432 >As a calibrated expert declarer plan the play. Win the HA, enter hand with the DA, and finesse the SQ. If spades are 2-2 with the king onside, I need to play clubs for one loser, and I can play the diamonds and HK first to get a count. If East has eight hearts, two diamonds, and two spades, he has at most one club, so I lead to the CA and a club towards the QT unless the king falls. If East has two clubs, running the Q or T works when East has either honor (7 out of 10 cases), and leading to the CA and then back to the Q or T works when West has the honor I guess (6 of 10 cases) and when East has KJ and the J falls on the first round. Thus either line is 7 of 10 a priori, but I will play East for at least one honor because he has shown up with nothing else, and xx QJ8xxxxx x Kx is a more likely 3H call at unfavorable vulnerability than xx QJ8xxxxx x xx. If East wins the SK, I will ruff the heart return high regardless of West's card; East is much more likely to have two spades than three given the 8-1 heart split, and this outweighs the restricted choice that West could play either the T or the 9 from T9. Now, my only hope to make the contract is to find East with stiff CK, but if the CK doesn't fall, I will play West for the CK and hope to go down one. If East has a singleton spade, I will take the diamonds (pitching a club), then the HK (pitching a club), and if West doesn't ruff that, give up a spade to West's king. If West leads a diamond, I get a ruff and sluff but still need to drop a stiff CK with East to make, and am down one otherwise. If West leads a club, I play the C9. If that holds, I play the CA next and hope the king falls. If it is covered by the CJ, I am down one. If it is covered by the CK, I lead a club towards the QT for the marked finesse. Thus, West has the chance to make a mistake and lead a club from Jx or Jxx, but if he doesn't, I am down one unless East's CK falls stiff. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 1 04:17:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:17:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Ghost Who Walks - The Phantom - is a comic book hero who has been very popular in Australia for decades. He has even entered Aussie political slang. When one Aussie politician quotes what an opposing Aussie politician said in times past, contradictory to the current position of that opposing politician, that is described as a Phantom manoeuvre, causing the Ghost to Walk. WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Pass......1C(1).....3H........3S Pass......4H........Pass......5C Pass......6S........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Strong club, 15+ hcp with any shape Opening lead: Four of hearts NORTH AQ87 AK9 KJ5 QT9 SOUTH J6532 T AQ A7432 As a calibrated expert declarer plan the play. David Grabiner, 1st June 2011: Win the HA, enter hand with the DA, and finesse the SQ. If spades are 2-2 with the king onside, [snip] David Grabiner, 7th July 2005, The Ghost Who Walks: [snip] Now, which is more likely? I have to count it out. Given that East has eight hearts, how many choices of the other five cards allow declarer to make? There are a total of 6188 cases (17 choose 5), of which 792 (13 choose 5) are unlikely because they give East a club void and a likely Lightner double. (It doesn't matter whether we throw out the diamond voids or not, since East will ruff the second trick if he is void in diamonds.) Finesse the SQ: T94 of spades, one diamond, one club: 40 cases. T94 of spades, two diamonds, no club: 28 unlikely cases. xx of spades, one diamond, two clubs: 240 cases. xx of spades, two diamonds, one club: 420 cases. xx of spades, three diamonds, no club: 168 unlikely cases. Total: 700 likely, 168 unlikely cases. Run the SJ, reenter hand with a club: T4/94 of spades, one diamond, two clubs: 160 cases. T4/94 of spades, two diamonds, one club: 280 cases. T/9 of spades, three diamonds, one club: 560 cases. T/9 of spades, two diamonds, two clubs: 560 cases. T/9 of spades, one diamond, three clubs not KJx: 112 cases. Total: 1672 cases. So running the SJ is still twice as likely to work as finessing the SQ, despite the possible lost club endplay. Richard Hills, 1st June 2011: Six years ago I was declarer at the table, and I also erred in failing to run the jack of trumps, turning white when East produced the singleton nine of trumps under dummy's queen. The complete deal: ..........................AQ87 ..........................AK8 ..........................KJ5 ..........................QT9 K4................................................T9 4.................................................QJ976532 T987632...........................................4 J86...............................................K5 ..........................J6532 ..........................T ..........................AQ ..........................A7432 The superior "restricted choice" line of running the jack of spades to pin East's singleton nine, then finessing against West's ten of spades would have failed at the table. So was my luckily inferior line sufficient evidence for the Director to rule that I had infracted the anti-peeking Law 74C5? Or is David Grabiner's 2011 posting proof that even the best of analysts can have a lucky blind spot? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110601/27feca94/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jun 1 04:54:01 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 22:54:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <871E996EA94A435C8FE6963313C351B7@erdos> Richard Hills writes: >The Ghost Who Walks - The Phantom - is a comic book hero who has been very >popular in Australia for decades. He has even entered >Aussie political slang. >When one Aussie politician quotes what an opposing Aussie politician said in >times past, contradictory to the current >position of that opposing politician, >that is described as a Phantom manoeuvre, causing the Ghost to Walk. And I rechecked my own post from six years ago; I spent a lot more time analyzing the play then than I did today, and even if I had noticed the alternative spade play, the mathematics to work out the optimal play is too intricate to be expected to work out at the table. There are many secondary considerations as well, and I came up with different considerations each time. For example, if you lose the spade finesse, having finessed with the SQ allows you to ruff the heart return high, which saves you an undertrick if spades are 2-2; I didn't notice that six years ago. But re-checking the cases, I would still say that running the SJ is the best play. WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Pass......1C(1).....3H........3S Pass......4H........Pass......5C Pass......6S........Pass......Pass Pass (1) Strong club, 15+ hcp with any shape Opening lead: Four of hearts NORTH AQ87 AK9 KJ5 QT9 SOUTH J6532 T AQ A7432 >The superior "restricted choice" line of running the jack of spades to pin >East's singleton nine, then finessing against West's ten of spades >would have >failed at the table. So was my luckily inferior line sufficient evidence for >the Director to rule that I had infracted the anti-peeking >Law 74C5? Or is >David Grabiner's 2011 posting proof that even the best of analysts can have a >lucky blind spot? Given the complexity, not only would I refuse to support a peeking allegation, but I consider the SQ play to be normal. Thus, if I were ruling on an adjusted score for a hypothetical auction (because there had been MI or UI), and N-S were non-offenders, I would give them credit for 6S making on the actual layout; if N-S were offenders, I would rule 6S down for both sides if it goes down on either spade play. From skc200 at sify.com Thu Jun 2 14:47:13 2011 From: skc200 at sify.com (skc200 skc200) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 18:17:13 +0530 Subject: [BLML] Blml Message-ID: skc200 at sify.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110602/dea79b8b/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Thu Jun 2 14:53:27 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:53:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Orlando2010.html > > If you want to discuss a particular case please post a new message > >> with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > >> one. > >> > No panelist comments are available yet -- for these cases they haven't been > written! > Here are my draft comments: 1. N/S should have appealed this ruling! E/W's appeal was without merit. They provided no reasons to back their contention that they would have bid differently given a correct explanation. 2. i) "The panel polled four players in the 3,000-8,000 point range. Three of the four felt that pass was a logical alternative to bidding 3? with the East hand." This is not what we should be asking in polls. It is the panel's responsibility to decide whether a call was a LA. They take the poll to inform their judgement. The question to ask, after providing only the authorized information, is "What call would you make, and what other calls would you seriously consider?" ii) Not bidding 3d is surely logical for a player who passed up an opportunity to bid 2d. I much prefer the Panel's ruling to the TD's. If I had my way a TD could not rule "no logical alternative" until he had taken a poll. 3. Did 5N really promise all the key cards but say nothing about the queen of trump? I know of no one who plays the method as described in the write-up. That said, South's bidding is evidence that he plays it that way. How did declarer take 13 tricks? A major suit squeeze does it, but there are other reasonable lines. I'm just curious -- it's not likely relevant to the ruling. I'd have liked to have seen testimony from E/W as to why the hesitation demonstrably suggested bidding 7. It seems just as likely that South was choosing between 6N and 6S. As for whether Pass would have been logical, three players is not a big enough sample size to determine that it wasn't. The rulings seem reasonable, but I find Jeff Goldsmith's argument compelling. South needed to plan his auction before bidding 4N, not afterwards. When he unnecessarily varies his tempo in a manner that could make information available to his partner he should not be surprised to receive an adjusted score. 4. I'd like to see the poll questions and responses -- the conclusion makes no sense to me. Declarer knew when dummy came down that the explanation was incorrect. He had the opportunity to ask again. Suppose he then learned that South had diamonds and North hearts. How would that lead to a successful play in the spade suit? The panel should refrain from giving bridge lessons. A second round hook is decidedly anti-percentage, since South could hold JTx. Even if the panel were right, this is not the kind of "serious error" envisioned under 12C1(b). The TD ruling was 100% correct. The panel was decision was unjust. 5. It's not enough to state that an AWMW was not given. We need to know why. West testified that he pulled because his unusual NT did not contain a stopper in the unbid suits? That's beyond laughable. I'd have assessed a procedural penalty against EW for blatant use of UI, in addition to the score adjustment. 6. I disagree with the panel's decision regarding UI and with their approach. The question is not whether 4S is acceptable but whether Pass would have been logical. Not bidding 4S would almost always be logical for a player who stopped in three on the previous round. He bid 3C to let partner in on the decision, and partner has made one. Further, walking the dog by bidding 3C then 3S then 4S just gives the opponent's a fielder's choice. Sometimes they'll go wrong, as they did here, but that's not the way to bet. Telling us that 100% of those polled bid 4S is meaningless without telling us how many were polled and of those how many would have bid 4S on a previous round. North's peers are those who would bid 3C followed by 3S. Further, one must poll a substantial number of players (I'd say 10 when practical, but there are no official guidelines) before concluding that a reasonable-looking action is not a logical alternative. I prefer the TD's ruling to the panel's. 7. "Player polling indicated that the 6? bid was influenced by the break in tempo. " i) It indicated no such thing. That conclusion would require mind-reading. Rather the poll indicated that Pass was a Logical Alternative. We must be careful not to attribute motives to players' actions. The laws do not require us do so in order to adjust the score. We can and do adjust without any accusation of evil intent, and it's important the we be able to continue to do so. ii) Kudos to the panel for following the minutes of the Laws Commission. Alas, I fear they led themselves down a garden path here. South's explanation shows that he was gambling on a score adjustment. It does not matter whether or not the irregularity under Law 12c1(e) is the hesitation or the action based on it -- gambling is gambling, and N/S should have kept their table result, per Law 12C1(b). What about E/W? It depends on the probable outcomes had West not bid 6S. His other choices were Pass and Double. It's certainly possible that East will bid 6S, or 6H, which will get EW to 6S. Per Law 12c1(e) we assign the offending side "The most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred." Here it seems to me that 6DX is at least "all probable" so I agree with the panel that the E/W score should be adjusted to +800. > If you're having trouble keeping score, so was I! As I see it the TD gave the right adjustment (none) for N/S and the wrong adjustment (none) for EW. The panel gave the right adjustment (+800 instead of +1460) to EW and the wrong adjustment (-800 instead of -1460) to N/S. > 8. Good work all around, except... How can screening have taken place with explaining the laws to the players? That is one of the main objectives of screening. 9. The panel's reasoning is perfect -- they corrected an injustice. 10. I would not fault South's bidding, since many of those polled did the same. I do agree that reaching 3C is no more or less attractive depending on East's real suit. Adjusting the score would not be out of the question, though. E/W committed an infraction and may have profited thereby. A procedural penalty would be reasonable. They did in fact violate correct procedure through their failure to alert. Certainly this appeal had merit. 11. The TD and Panel rulings as stated applied Law 12C1(b) incorrectly. This law states only that the non-offending side keeps its result if it makes a serious error unrelated to the infraction. Were this law to apply we would still adjust the score for the offenders. That said, I see no infraction and so no possibility of adjustment for either side. East, for reasons best known to herself, decided to announce after the deal that given the opportunity she would have passed a forcing bid. Such an announcement may be discourteous, but it has no relevance to the actual bidding and play. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110602/de351f2a/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 2 21:46:21 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:46:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> <4DD9B2BD.7020604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4DE7E88D.2070908@nhcc.net> On 5/23/2011 11:19 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > You deleted the part about director error. Sorry for getting back to this so late, but Robert was referring to giving each side the best of it in a UI case when he couldn't conduct a poll to decide on LA's. In other words, the possible UI-users keep the table score, but their opponents get an adjusted score in their favor. Perhaps this could be called an anti-Reveley-ruling. No doubt it keeps the paying customers happy. Robert's suggestion, if I've understood it correctly, is illegal and cannot be justified by L82C, which Robert seems to misunderstand. L82C doesn't allow an infraction to be canceled; it just says to treat both sides as non-offending subsequent to the infraction if an incorrect ruling affects actions at the table. The bit about "if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally" is important! Perhaps an example will help. Say South revokes, it's established, and the Director is called. The Director incorrectly rules that there will be a two-trick pen... ah, rectification. South then takes a highly risky and unsuccessful line hoping to salvage a matchpoint or two. Now the Director realizes the rectification should have been one trick, and South might have taken a normal line had he been told that. L82C doesn't cancel either the revoke or the one-trick rectification, but _for judging what South might have done, given a correct ruling_, L82C says to treat both sides as non-offending. This may well lead to a split score. L82C will rarely if ever apply in a UI case because the table play won't be affected. The TD or AC just applies the relevant Laws and adjusts the score at the end if necessary. If there's an error the first time around, it just gets fixed, and the "normal" score is given. That might be a split score, but it won't be because a call or play is simultaneously legal and illegal. > The psychological literature is overflowing with examples of people being > biased by things they aren't aware of. Yes, if you take a poll, you have to ask the right questions, and you have to judge whether the results are meaningful. > So, if I have to make a decision about what people would do, and it isn't > obvious, I would never trust my own decision. So then what. Consult if at all possible. Otherwise, do your best, taking account of your own bias as best you can. Advise of the right to appeal. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 2 22:06:47 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:06:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> Message-ID: <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> On 5/25/2011 3:37 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > We can have the following scenarios: South is declarer and East has made an > opening lead (out of turn): > > 1: Someone calls attention to the irregularity. Law 54 applies in its > entirety. Actually it's not so clear; part of the beginning of L54 is "and offender?s partner leads face down." Probably that should be "whether or not" instead of "and." Nevertheless, I agree with Sven if the above is the whole story. > 2: Someone calls attention to the irregularity, but East had received the > incorrect information that it was his turn to lead (or that North was > declarer, which amounts to the same). Law 47E1 rather than Law 54 applies. I agree with this, too. > According to this law East may retract his lead but he is not required to do > so. Seems right. Also, if East does retract, the card appears to be UI to South but AI to West. > South may not accept the lead, I understand this to mean that the choice > made by East (whether or not to retract his lead) is binding on South and > that South then remains declarer. (If South began to face his cards after > attention was called to the irregularity he was violating Law 9B2). Seems right. > 3: South begins to face his cards and then someone calls attention to the > fact that the opening lead was out of turn. Law 54A applies specifically and > unconditionally. But I don't understand this last, assuming NS had told East it was his lead. L54A looks very much like a rectification to me, and L47E1 includes the words "without further rectification." Eric's solution -- South becomes dummy, but East may still retract his lead -- seems equitable to me, but I don't see how to get there unless you think L54A is not a rectification after all. However, the definition of rectification -- "the remedial provisions to be applied when an irregularity has come to the Director?s attention" -- seems inclusive. Also consider L23. If NS have wrong-sided their contract, it might help them to tell East to lead. Likewise, East might well want to lead, and it can't hurt to ask "my lead?" in case opponents are asleep. Does "no further rectification" rule out L23 as well? From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 2 22:15:31 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:15:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> On 6/2/2011 8:53 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > The question to ask, after providing only the authorized information, is > "What call would you make, and what other calls would you seriously > consider?" Would it be better to phrase the question "What calls would you seriously consider, and of those, which one would you choose?" Maybe even better to ask as two separate questions? I'd like to hear from people who actually do a lot of polling which form of questioning brings the most useful responses. This is a practical question about polling; obviously it doesn't affect the legal criteria being applied. However, if there is a "best practice" for the form of questioning, the casebooks are a good place to propagate it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 2 23:37:18 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 07:37:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >Would it be better to phrase the question "What calls would you >seriously consider, and of those, which one would you choose?" Maybe >even better to ask as two separate questions? > >I'd like to hear from people who actually do a lot of polling which form >of questioning brings the most useful responses. This is a practical >question about polling; obviously it doesn't affect the legal criteria >being applied. However, if there is a "best practice" for the form of >questioning, the casebooks are a good place to propagate it. "Best practice" in the 2010 EBU White Book, clause 16.6.2 - Method: Asking players for opinions is helpful in deciding whether an action would be considered and chosen, but the questions should be carefully presented. For example, in a hesitation case players should be given the problem without reference to the hesitation. The TD should ask them what they would call after the given sequence, telling them the methods employed. If their answer is not the action under consideration, they should be asked what alternatives they considered. Such polls will help to give the TD an idea of whether an action is an LA. If a TD takes a poll and then it goes to appeal he should write the results of the poll on the form. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110602/9d474c04/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 2 23:46:56 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:46:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > Sven Pran wrote: > > We can have the following scenarios: South is declarer > > and East has made an opening lead (out of turn): [...] > > 3: South begins to face his cards and then someone calls > > attention to the fact that the opening lead was out of turn. > > Law 54A applies specifically and unconditionally. > > But I don't understand this last, assuming NS had told East it was his > lead. L54A looks very much like a rectification to me, and L47E1 > includes the words "without further rectification." > > Eric's solution -- South becomes dummy, but East may still retract his > lead -- seems equitable to me, but I don't see how to get there unless > you think L54A is not a rectification after all. However, the > definition of rectification -- "the remedial provisions to be applied > when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention" -- seems > inclusive. > > Also consider L23. If NS have wrong-sided their contract, it might > help > them to tell East to lead. Likewise, East might well want to lead, and > it can't hurt to ask "my lead?" in case opponents are asleep. Does "no > further rectification" rule out L23 as well? L47E1 must be irrelevant in this situation or you could have the following scenario in my alternative 3: South faces his cards, West follows suit and North completes the trick. Then someone calls attention to the fact that the opening lead was out of turn and East requests permission to retract his opening lead under law 47E1. Do we agree that this is meaningless? (Given the existence of Law 54A). Law 54A simply states that after the irregularity from East (OLOOT) followed by the irregularity from South (facing, or beginning to face his hand although he is declarer) correct procedure is to continue as if North is declarer and no irregularity has taken place. Then there can be no question of any rectification and no need in Law 54A to specify "without any rectification". However, law 23 is always applicable (even when a law includes the text "without further rectification" or as above in Law 54A situations) when the Director finds that "an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 3 02:21:02 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:21:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:46:56 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Steve Willner >> Sven Pran wrote: >> > We can have the following scenarios: South is declarer >> > and East has made an opening lead (out of turn): > [...] >> > 3: South begins to face his cards and then someone calls >> > attention to the fact that the opening lead was out of turn. >> > Law 54A applies specifically and unconditionally. >> >> But I don't understand this last, assuming NS had told East it was his >> lead. L54A looks very much like a rectification to me, and L47E1 >> includes the words "without further rectification." >> >> Eric's solution -- South becomes dummy, but East may still retract his >> lead -- seems equitable to me, but I don't see how to get there unless >> you think L54A is not a rectification after all. However, the >> definition of rectification -- "the remedial provisions to be applied >> when an irregularity has come to the Director's attention" -- seems >> inclusive. >> >> Also consider L23. If NS have wrong-sided their contract, it might >> help >> them to tell East to lead. Likewise, East might well want to lead, and >> it can't hurt to ask "my lead?" in case opponents are asleep. Does "no >> further rectification" rule out L23 as well? > > L47E1 must be irrelevant in this situation or you could have the > following > scenario in my alternative 3: > > South faces his cards, West follows suit and North completes the trick. > Then > someone calls attention to the fact that the opening lead was out of turn > and East requests permission to retract his opening lead under law 47E1. > > Do we agree that this is meaningless? (Given the existence of Law 54A). > > Law 54A simply states that after the irregularity from East (OLOOT) > followed > by the irregularity from South (facing, or beginning to face his hand > although he is declarer) correct procedure is to continue as if North is > declarer and no irregularity has taken place. Then there can be no > question > of any rectification and no need in Law 54A to specify "without any > rectification". > > However, law 23 is always applicable (even when a law includes the text > "without further rectification" or as above in Law 54A situations) when > the > Director finds that "an offender could have been aware at the time of his > irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". It seems like, if you apply this to the opening lead out of turn following misinformation, that it would always apply. The opening lead is AI to partner and UI to declarer. I have trouble with a general law always taking precedence over a specific law. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 3 03:01:04 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:01:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <871E996EA94A435C8FE6963313C351B7@erdos> Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >>However, Law 23 is always applicable (even when a law >>includes the text "without further rectification" or as >>above in Law 54A situations) when the Director finds that "an >>offender could have been aware at the time of his >>irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending >>side". Robert Frick: [snip] >I have trouble with a general law always taking precedence >over a specific law. T.G. McFadden, Understanding the Internet: Model, Metaphor, and Analogy ... then to the extent that the idioms of the analogy are not appropriate to the target system, we will be confused by the metaphor. We might be just a little confused, as when we wonder what color are the tiny particles that make up an ideal gas, or whether the objects orbiting the nucleus of the hydrogen atom have mountains or are covered with ice. Or we might be very confused, as was the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing all of the colleges and the Bodleian Library, still asked "But where is the University?" ... Richard Hills: It seems to me that Robert Frick is asking "But where is the University?", that is Bob making a category mistake on the issue of the Principle endorsed by the WBF LC that "a specific Law takes precedence over a more general Law". The category mistake is the assumption that Law 23, which may modify the score adjustment of many other Laws, is necessarily a general Law due to its wide net. Not so. Law 23 has a very _specific_ scope, that of "Awareness of Potential Damage". Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110603/0ca20a11/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 3 04:14:49 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:14:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> Message-ID: <4DE84399.4020501@nhcc.net> On 6/2/2011 8:21 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > It seems like, if you apply [L23] to the opening lead out of turn following > misinformation, that it would always apply. Yes, L23 always applies. Who said otherwise? > The opening lead is AI to partner and UI to declarer. If you mean the withdrawn card after the initial lead is not accepted, that's what I thought I wrote. > I have trouble with a general law always taking precedence over a specific > law. Who is suggesting that? If you think "without further rectification" means L23 cannot apply to the LOOT -- and you might be right about that -- I still don't see why it wouldn't apply to the side who told the wrong opponent to lead. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 3 04:25:45 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 22:25:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> Message-ID: <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> On 6/2/2011 5:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > L47E1 must be irrelevant in this situation or you could have the following > scenario in my alternative 3: > > South faces his cards, West follows suit and North completes the trick. Then > someone calls attention to the fact that the opening lead was out of turn > and East requests permission to retract his opening lead under law 47E1. > > Do we agree that this is meaningless? (Given the existence of Law 54A). I'm not sure "meaningless" is quite the right word, but I agree that it's not obvious what to do. The problem is that L47E1 doesn't state a time limit. Normally I'd expect the limit to be when leader's partner plays to the trick, but I don't see that written anywhere. (Grattan: something for your notebook?) > Law 54A simply states that after the irregularity from East (OLOOT) followed > by the irregularity from South (facing, or beginning to face his hand > although he is declarer) correct procedure is to continue as if North is > declarer and no irregularity has taken place. Then there can be no question > of any rectification and no need in Law 54A to specify "without any > rectification". The problem is that 54A looks to me like a rectification. Asserting that it's something else is, I suppose, a partial way out of the difficulty. However, I still don't see a time limit in your scenario. After North completes the trick, or even after several tricks have been played, which Law says East cannot retract his lead? I know the idea is silly, and no Director would allow it, but which Law covers it? > However, law 23 is always applicable (even when a law includes the text > "without further rectification" or as above in Law 54A situations) when the > Director finds that "an offender could have been aware at the time of his > irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". I'm glad we agree on this, at least. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 3 06:05:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:05:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>..... >>L47E1 must be irrelevant in this situation or you could have >>the following scenario in my alternative 3: >> >>South faces his cards, West follows suit and North completes >>the trick. Then someone calls attention to the fact that the >>opening lead was out of turn and East requests permission to >>retract his opening lead under law 47E1. >> >>Do we agree that this is meaningless? (Given the existence >>of Law 54A). >>..... Steve Willner: >I'm not sure "meaningless" is quite the right word, but I >agree that it's not obvious what to do. The problem is that >L47E1 doesn't state a time limit. Normally I'd expect the >limit to be when leader's partner plays to the trick, but I >don't see that written anywhere. (Grattan: something for >your notebook?) >..... Law 47E - Change of Play Based on Misinformation 1 A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances. 2(a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card. 2(b) When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score. Richard Hills: I vote the Law 47E1 time expiring when LHO plays to the trick. Not only is this consistent with the Law 47E2 expiry time, but it is also internally consistent with the "may not be accepted by his LHO" prohibition. That is, if LHO acceptance has happened before the misinformation is revealed, Law 47E1 no longer applies and the Director is restricted to possibly awarding a Law 12A1 and/or Law 23 adjusted score at the end of play. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110603/92866776/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 06:08:27 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 06:08:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> On Behalf Of Steve Willner > On 6/2/2011 5:46 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > L47E1 must be irrelevant in this situation or you could have the > following > > scenario in my alternative 3: > > > > South faces his cards, West follows suit and North completes the > > trick. Then someone calls attention to the fact that the opening > > lead was out of turn and East requests permission to retract his > > opening lead under law 47E1. > > > > Do we agree that this is meaningless? (Given the existence of > > Law 54A). > > I'm not sure "meaningless" is quite the right word, Maybe I should have used the word "silly" instead. > but I agree that > it's not obvious what to do. The problem is that L47E1 doesn't state a > time limit. Normally I'd expect the limit to be when leader's partner > plays to the trick, but I don't see that written anywhere. (Grattan: > something for your notebook?) L47E1 is a general law that applies whenever a player makes a lead or play out of turn under misunderstanding caused by incorrect information from opponents that it is his turn to lead/play. L53A and L54A are more specific laws applicable for the situation otherwise covered by L47E1 when the next player in rotation after the lead/play out of turn takes a specific action before attention is called to this irregularity. L47E1 specifies a rectification while the other two laws just specifies correct procedures for their respective special situations. So the time limit implied in L47E1 is when offender's LHO takes the action that invokes L53A or L54A rather than L47E1 as the case may be (without attention having been called to the lead/play out of turn). > > > Law 54A simply states that after the irregularity from East (OLOOT) > > followed by the irregularity from South (facing, or beginning to face > > his hand although he is declarer) correct procedure is to continue as > > if North is declarer and no irregularity has taken place. Then there > > can be no question of any rectification and no need in Law 54A to > > specify "without any rectification". > > The problem is that 54A looks to me like a rectification. Asserting > that it's something else is, I suppose, a partial way out of the > difficulty. However, I still don't see a time limit in your scenario. > After North completes the trick, or even after several tricks have been > played, which Law says East cannot retract his lead? I know the idea > is silly, and no Director would allow it, but which Law covers it? I just cannot see any problem with L54A? This law simply states that if declarer begins acting as if he were dummy he becomes dummy and must complete his action as such. There is no need for any time limit in L54A? [...] From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 3 17:42:06 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:42:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:01:04 -0400, wrote: > Sven Pran: > > [snip] > >>> However, Law 23 is always applicable (even when a law >>> includes the text "without further rectification" or as >>> above in Law 54A situations) when the Director finds that "an >>> offender could have been aware at the time of his >>> irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending >>> side". > > Robert Frick: > > [snip] > >> I have trouble with a general law always taking precedence >> over a specific law. > > T.G. McFadden, > Understanding the Internet: Model, Metaphor, and Analogy > > ... then to the extent that the idioms of the analogy are not > appropriate to the target system, we will be confused by the > metaphor. We might be just a little confused, as when we wonder > what color are the tiny particles that make up an ideal gas, or > whether the objects orbiting the nucleus of the hydrogen atom > have mountains or are covered with ice. Or we might be very > confused, as was the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing all of > the colleges and the Bodleian Library, still asked "But where > is the University?" ... > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that Robert Frick is asking "But where is the > University?", that is Bob making a category mistake on the > issue of the Principle endorsed by the WBF LC that "a specific > Law takes precedence over a more general Law". > > The category mistake is the assumption that Law 23, which may > modify the score adjustment of many other Laws, is necessarily > a general Law due to its wide net. Not so. Law 23 has a very > _specific_ scope, that of "Awareness of Potential Damage". > Um, you snipped my argument. Perhaps you did not understand it. When I ask the opps whose lead it is, and they tell me, then it is always to my advantage to commit the infraction of making an opening lead. Certainly I "could" know this (as Law 23 is usually applied). This indeed is a good (but ethically questionable) strategy. So, the point I made was that if you want to apply Law 23 to this situation, *then it always applies*. Then, the phrase *no rectification* would become meaningless, if as Sven suggests L23 applies to this situation. Instead we have that there is no rectification, but see Law 23 for mandatory rectification. Which is silly. Which is why specific laws take precedence over general laws. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 18:54:35 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:54:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001cc220e$eba1fc90$c2e5f5b0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick [....] > When I ask the opps whose lead it is, and they tell me, then > it is always to my advantage to commit the infraction of making > an opening lead. > Certainly I "could" know this (as Law 23 is usually applied). > This indeed is a good (but ethically questionable) strategy. > So, the point I made was that if you want to apply Law 23 to > this situation, *then it always applies*. > > Then, the phrase *no rectification* would become meaningless, > if as Sven suggests L23 applies to this situation. Instead > we have that there is no rectification, but see Law 23 for > mandatory rectification. Which is silly. > Which is why specific laws take precedence over general laws. I am extremely worried over the attitude indicated by this argumentation: If, as I understand you, you advocate always asking if it is your turn to lead in the hope that you will receive the wrong answer so that you can deliberately use this to make an incorrect lead under the cover of Law 47E1 which now is "always to your advantage" I shall most certainly throw Law 23 at you. In more normal circumstances I shall use Law 23 against a player who misleads an opponent into believing that it is his turn to lead/play while he "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". The irregularity here is the misleading information, not the lead or play out of turn. And if I judge that a player has made a lead or play out of turn after securing (incorrect) information from opponents that it was his turn to lead or play, although he all the time most likely was aware of the fact that it was not his turn to play I shall use Law 23 against him as well. The irregularity in this case is a violation of Law 72B. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 3 19:25:04 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 13:25:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:01:04 -0400, wrote: > >> Sven Pran: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> However, Law 23 is always applicable (even when a law >>>> includes the text "without further rectification" or as >>>> above in Law 54A situations) when the Director finds that "an >>>> offender could have been aware at the time of his >>>> irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending >>>> side". >> >> Robert Frick: >> >> [snip] >> >>> I have trouble with a general law always taking precedence >>> over a specific law. >> >> T.G. McFadden, >> Understanding the Internet: Model, Metaphor, and Analogy >> >> ... then to the extent that the idioms of the analogy are not >> appropriate to the target system, we will be confused by the >> metaphor. We might be just a little confused, as when we wonder >> what color are the tiny particles that make up an ideal gas, or >> whether the objects orbiting the nucleus of the hydrogen atom >> have mountains or are covered with ice. Or we might be very >> confused, as was the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing all of >> the colleges and the Bodleian Library, still asked "But where >> is the University?" ... >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> It seems to me that Robert Frick is asking "But where is the >> University?", that is Bob making a category mistake on the >> issue of the Principle endorsed by the WBF LC that "a specific >> Law takes precedence over a more general Law". >> >> The category mistake is the assumption that Law 23, which may >> modify the score adjustment of many other Laws, is necessarily >> a general Law due to its wide net. Not so. Law 23 has a very >> _specific_ scope, that of "Awareness of Potential Damage". >> > > Um, you snipped my argument. Perhaps you did not understand it. > > When I ask the opps whose lead it is, and they tell me, then it is > always > to my advantage to commit the infraction of making an opening lead. > Certainly I "could" know this (as Law 23 is usually applied). This > indeed > is a good (but ethically questionable) strategy. So, the point I > made was > that if you want to apply Law 23 to this situation, *then it always > applies*. > > Then, the phrase *no rectification* would become meaningless, if as > Sven > suggests L23 applies to this situation. Instead we have that there > is no > rectification, but see Law 23 for mandatory rectification. Which is > silly. > Which is why specific laws take precedence over general laws. As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be automatically applied. Both common sense and the history behind L23 tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage by his action. To say that something "could have happened" can mean either (a) it might have happened, but we don't know whether it did, or (b) it didn't happen, but it might have happened under different circumstances or in a different situation. We either accept meaning (a) in applying L23, or we award a L23-adjusted score any time any offender gains from any infraction without exception. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 3 20:05:01 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 20:05:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000101cc2218$c2390ce0$46ab26a0$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau [...] > As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous > phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly > logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an > infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be > automatically applied. Both common sense and the history behind L23 > tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in > which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might > have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage > by his action. > > To say that something "could have happened" can mean either (a) it > might have happened, but we don't know whether it did, or (b) it > didn't happen, but it might have happened under different > circumstances or in a different situation. We either accept meaning > (a) in applying L23, or we award a L23-adjusted score any time any > offender gains from any infraction without exception. Very simplified L23 is there to help the Director rule against a cheat without showing evidence of cheating. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 3 22:43:42 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:43:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <000101cc2218$c2390ce0$46ab26a0$@no> References: , <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net>, <000101cc2218$c2390ce0$46ab26a0$@no> Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > From: svenpran at online.no > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 20:05:01 +0200 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Principles versus details > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > [...] > > As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous > > phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly > > logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an > > infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be > > automatically applied. Both common sense and the history behind L23 > > tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in > > which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might > > have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage > > by his action. > > > > To say that something "could have happened" can mean either (a) it > > might have happened, but we don't know whether it did, or (b) it > > didn't happen, but it might have happened under different > > circumstances or in a different situation. We either accept meaning > > (a) in applying L23, or we award a L23-adjusted score any time any > > offender gains from any infraction without exception. > > Very simplified L23 is there to help the Director rule against a cheat > without showing evidence of cheating. The utterance is cause of great sadness. regards roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 4 02:03:05 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 20:03:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:25:04 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 21:01:04 -0400, wrote: >> >>> Sven Pran: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> However, Law 23 is always applicable (even when a law >>>>> includes the text "without further rectification" or as >>>>> above in Law 54A situations) when the Director finds that "an >>>>> offender could have been aware at the time of his >>>>> irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending >>>>> side". >>> >>> Robert Frick: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> I have trouble with a general law always taking precedence >>>> over a specific law. >>> >>> T.G. McFadden, >>> Understanding the Internet: Model, Metaphor, and Analogy >>> >>> ... then to the extent that the idioms of the analogy are not >>> appropriate to the target system, we will be confused by the >>> metaphor. We might be just a little confused, as when we wonder >>> what color are the tiny particles that make up an ideal gas, or >>> whether the objects orbiting the nucleus of the hydrogen atom >>> have mountains or are covered with ice. Or we might be very >>> confused, as was the tourist in Oxford who, after seeing all of >>> the colleges and the Bodleian Library, still asked "But where >>> is the University?" ... >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> It seems to me that Robert Frick is asking "But where is the >>> University?", that is Bob making a category mistake on the >>> issue of the Principle endorsed by the WBF LC that "a specific >>> Law takes precedence over a more general Law". >>> >>> The category mistake is the assumption that Law 23, which may >>> modify the score adjustment of many other Laws, is necessarily >>> a general Law due to its wide net. Not so. Law 23 has a very >>> _specific_ scope, that of "Awareness of Potential Damage". >>> >> >> Um, you snipped my argument. Perhaps you did not understand it. >> >> When I ask the opps whose lead it is, and they tell me, then it is >> always >> to my advantage to commit the infraction of making an opening lead. >> Certainly I "could" know this (as Law 23 is usually applied). This >> indeed >> is a good (but ethically questionable) strategy. So, the point I >> made was >> that if you want to apply Law 23 to this situation, *then it always >> applies*. >> >> Then, the phrase *no rectification* would become meaningless, if as >> Sven >> suggests L23 applies to this situation. Instead we have that there >> is no >> rectification, but see Law 23 for mandatory rectification. Which is >> silly. >> Which is why specific laws take precedence over general laws. > > As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous > phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly > logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an > infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be > automatically applied. Both common sense and the history behind L23 > tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in > which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might > have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage > by his action. > > To say that something "could have happened" can mean either (a) it > might have happened, but we don't know whether it did, or (b) it > didn't happen, but it might have happened under different > circumstances or in a different situation. We either accept meaning > (a) in applying L23, or we award a L23-adjusted score any time any > offender gains from any infraction without exception. This is unduly pessimistic. I open 1NT out of turn, then my partner is barred and I shoot out a 3NT call. This might work out well, but there is no way I could have known that my 3NT call was going to work. (Except cheating, I guess.) I have always interpreted "could have known" as meaning, "could have known with perfect knowledge of the bridge rules and with their current bridge ability." For example, there was an interesting hand where a defenders penalty card caused declarer to go down in a cold contract (losing to the stiff king onside). How would I have ruled? I decided that there was no way that defender could have calculated the effect of his penalty card. But if it was Benito Garazzo defending, I would have applied L23. But, as your post makes me aware, that is my idiosyncratic interpretation. Your formulation doesn't completely avoid the problem. If L23 should really be interpreted as making an adjustment when a player knew the infraction would probably be to his benefit (Sven) or might have known (your interpretation), then L23 is deliberately mistated, for the sake of appearance. So, then, if we use L23 against someone, how do we explain "could have happened" it to continue this charade? From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jun 4 18:33:17 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:33:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <000101cc2218$c2390ce0$46ab26a0$@no> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <000101cc2218$c2390ce0$46ab26a0$@no> Message-ID: <539FB82A-9B47-47E8-841D-C2AE50459DE5@starpower.net> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous >> phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly >> logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an >> infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be >> automatically applied. Both common sense and the history behind L23 >> tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in >> which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might >> have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage >> by his action. >> >> To say that something "could have happened" can mean either (a) it >> might have happened, but we don't know whether it did, or (b) it >> didn't happen, but it might have happened under different >> circumstances or in a different situation. We either accept meaning >> (a) in applying L23, or we award a L23-adjusted score any time any >> offender gains from any infraction without exception. > > Very simplified L23 is there to help the Director rule against a cheat > without showing evidence of cheating. Exactly so. L23 was rewritten to protect the directors (and the RAs, especially the ACBL, which had been having problems) from legal liability for calling a player out for cheating without courtroom- worthy evidence to back up the alleged slander. It was never intended to "catch" anyone who wouldn't have been thought to have offended under the previous version. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Jun 4 18:40:10 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:40:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:25:04 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous >> phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly >> logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an >> infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be >> automatically applied. Both common sense and the history behind L23 >> tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in >> which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might >> have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage >> by his action. >> >> To say that something "could have happened" can mean either (a) it >> might have happened, but we don't know whether it did, or (b) it >> didn't happen, but it might have happened under different >> circumstances or in a different situation. We either accept meaning >> (a) in applying L23, or we award a L23-adjusted score any time any >> offender gains from any infraction without exception. > > This is unduly pessimistic. I open 1NT out of turn, then my partner is > barred and I shoot out a 3NT call. This might work out well, but > there is > no way I could have known that my 3NT call was going to work. (Except > cheating, I guess.) > > I have always interpreted "could have known" as meaning, "could > have known > with perfect knowledge of the bridge rules and with their current > bridge > ability." > > For example, there was an interesting hand where a defenders > penalty card > caused declarer to go down in a cold contract (losing to the stiff > king > onside). How would I have ruled? I decided that there was no way that > defender could have calculated the effect of his penalty card. But > if it > was Benito Garazzo defending, I would have applied L23. > > But, as your post makes me aware, that is my idiosyncratic > interpretation. > > Your formulation doesn't completely avoid the problem. If L23 should > really be interpreted as making an adjustment when a player knew the > infraction would probably be to his benefit (Sven) or might have known > (your interpretation), then L23 is deliberately mistated, for the > sake of > appearance. So, then, if we use L23 against someone, how do we explain > "could have happened" it to continue this charade? We tell them that we're not accusing them of cheating, no-sirree- never, but that we must rule against them if they do the same thing a deliberate cheat would do, no matter how obviously unintentional. What we do not tell them is that our unstated definition of "the same thing a deliberate cheat would do" includes "something to make us suspicious". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Sun Jun 5 01:32:08 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 01:32:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> References: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 6/2/2011 8:53 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > The question to ask, after providing only the authorized information, is > > "What call would you make, and what other calls would you seriously > > consider?" > > Would it be better to phrase the question "What calls would you > seriously consider, and of those, which one would you choose?" Maybe > even better to ask as two separate questions? > Thanks for the suggestion! I prefer it to the formulation I proposed, and I agree that it would be best posed as two separate questions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110604/c7522164/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jun 5 10:29:49 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:29:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4DEB3E7D.30405@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110605/d5981253/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 5 19:52:44 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:52:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:40:10 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:25:04 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous >>> phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly >>> logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an >>> infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be >>> automatically applied. Both common sense and the history behind L23 >>> tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in >>> which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might >>> have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage >>> by his action. >>> >>> To say that something "could have happened" can mean either (a) it >>> might have happened, but we don't know whether it did, or (b) it >>> didn't happen, but it might have happened under different >>> circumstances or in a different situation. We either accept meaning >>> (a) in applying L23, or we award a L23-adjusted score any time any >>> offender gains from any infraction without exception. >> >> This is unduly pessimistic. I open 1NT out of turn, then my partner is >> barred and I shoot out a 3NT call. This might work out well, but >> there is >> no way I could have known that my 3NT call was going to work. (Except >> cheating, I guess.) >> >> I have always interpreted "could have known" as meaning, "could >> have known >> with perfect knowledge of the bridge rules and with their current >> bridge >> ability." >> >> For example, there was an interesting hand where a defenders >> penalty card >> caused declarer to go down in a cold contract (losing to the stiff >> king >> onside). How would I have ruled? I decided that there was no way that >> defender could have calculated the effect of his penalty card. But >> if it >> was Benito Garazzo defending, I would have applied L23. >> >> But, as your post makes me aware, that is my idiosyncratic >> interpretation. >> >> Your formulation doesn't completely avoid the problem. If L23 should >> really be interpreted as making an adjustment when a player knew the >> infraction would probably be to his benefit (Sven) or might have known >> (your interpretation), then L23 is deliberately mistated, for the >> sake of >> appearance. So, then, if we use L23 against someone, how do we explain >> "could have happened" it to continue this charade? > > We tell them that we're not accusing them of cheating, no-sirree- > never, but that we must rule against them if they do the same thing a > deliberate cheat would do, no matter how obviously unintentional. > What we do not tell them is that our unstated definition of "the same > thing a deliberate cheat would do" includes "something to make us > suspicious". So, to put this in context, there is an opening lead out of turn, but the leader says he was told it was his lead. I first determine the facts -- does it seem like the opening leader knew it wasn't his lead? If there is something to make me suspicious, then I would apply L23 at the end of the hand. I am not sure what counts as suspicious. The opponents claiming that the opening leader knew? The opening leader being an experienced player or a suspicious person? Suppose there is one person that a few people have claimed sometimes cheats. I would always apply L23 on him? I guess it would be suspicious if the opening leader knew there was no penalty in this situation. Is that enough to apply L23? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 6 00:53:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:53:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: John Tierney, New York Times, 16th May 2011: ..... And why did some people keep joylessly playing bridge? Dr. Seligman, an avid player himself, kept noticing them at tournaments. They never smiled, not even when they won. ..... They didn't take aesthetic satisfaction in playing a hand cleverly and "winning pretty". They were quite willing to win ugly, sometimes even when that meant cheating. "They wanted to win for its own sake, even if it brought no positive emotion," says Dr. Seligman, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. "They were like hedge fund managers who just want to accumulate money and toys for their own sake. Watching them play, seeing them cheat, it kept hitting me that accomplishment is a human desiderata in itself." ..... Eric Landau: >We tell them that we're not accusing them of cheating, >no-sirree-never, but that we must rule against them if >they do the same thing a deliberate cheat would do, no >matter how obviously unintentional. > >What we do not tell them is that our unstated definition >of "the same thing a deliberate cheat would do" includes >"something to make us suspicious". Richard Hills: The predecessor of the 2007 Law 23 was the 1997 Law 72B1. The 1997 Law 72B1 used the phrase "likely to damage". As Eric Landau noted in pre-2007 blml debate, any infraction was "likely to damage" the non-offending side beyond the prescribed rectification. So the 2007 Law 23 uses the phrase "could well damage", with the intensifier "well" being reasonably translated by Eric's "something to make [the Director] suspicious". A canonical example of a Law 23 infraction is East-West bidding constructively in diamonds and North-South using the favourable vulnerability to bid preemptively in spades. East bids 6D, South saves in 6S, West bids 7D and South doubles out-of-turn holding the ace of diamonds. North's enforced Pass means that North does not take the phantom sacrifice in 7S. Whether North-South are little old ladies who are always smiling, or whether North- South are unsmiling joyless experts who like winning ugly, in both cases the Director applies Law 23. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110605/ae4334dc/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 6 09:36:01 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:36:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> References: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <005501cc241c$62743950$275cabf0$@nl> Asking questions for 16B1 purposes. First, the question is if the extraneous information is actually suggesting something. In theory you should go and ask players if it is, as a first round information. However in practice I rarely do it, because of the time, and the scarcity of suitable players, because another question is coming later, and you really cannot ask the same players again. If I do ask it is something like: - The following happens, your partner looks sad/hesitates/whatever and I tell you you are now allowed to take that into account. What do you think his mannerism shows, or don't you have a clue? Secondly, if it turns out the extraneous information actually points into a specific direction the real question comes. I show players the auction(without extraneous information), give them the meaning of the bids, and ask them what they would bid. After they answer I ask them their second choice, then their third. >From the hesitation in answering the questions I can easily deduce how serious these alternatives are. Basically, that is how I do it. Hans From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 15:34:34 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:34:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:40:10 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Your formulation doesn't completely avoid the problem. If L23 should >>> really be interpreted as making an adjustment when a player knew the >>> infraction would probably be to his benefit (Sven) or might have >>> known >>> (your interpretation), then L23 is deliberately mistated, for the >>> sake of >>> appearance. So, then, if we use L23 against someone, how do we >>> explain >>> "could have happened" it to continue this charade? >> >> We tell them that we're not accusing them of cheating, no-sirree- >> never, but that we must rule against them if they do the same thing a >> deliberate cheat would do, no matter how obviously unintentional. >> What we do not tell them is that our unstated definition of "the same >> thing a deliberate cheat would do" includes "something to make us >> suspicious". > > So, to put this in context, there is an opening lead out of turn, > but the > leader says he was told it was his lead. I first determine the > facts -- > does it seem like the opening leader knew it wasn't his lead? If > there is > something to make me suspicious, then I would apply L23 at the end > of the > hand. > > I am not sure what counts as suspicious. The opponents claiming > that the > opening leader knew? The opening leader being an experienced player > or a > suspicious person? Suppose there is one person that a few people have > claimed sometimes cheats. I would always apply L23 on him? I guess it > would be suspicious if the opening leader knew there was no penalty in > this situation. Is that enough to apply L23? I'm not sure either -- perhaps it's like pornography. Those are tough decisions, and that's why directors get paid the big bucks. All we can do is try our best to be fair and impartial. If there were ready answers to Bob's questions, we wouldn't have a problem with different directors ruling differently in the same situations. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 15:52:19 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:52:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: <005501cc241c$62743950$275cabf0$@nl> References: <4DE7EF63.9000707@nhcc.net> <005501cc241c$62743950$275cabf0$@nl> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Asking questions for 16B1 purposes. > > First, the question is if the extraneous information is actually > suggesting > something. > > In theory you should go and ask players if it is, as a first round > information. However in practice I rarely do it, because of the > time, and > the scarcity of suitable players, because another question is > coming later, > and you really cannot ask the same players again. > > If I do ask it is something like: > > - The following happens, your partner looks sad/hesitates/whatever > and I > tell you you are now allowed to take that into account. What do you > think > his mannerism shows, or don't you have a clue? > > Secondly, if it turns out the extraneous information actually > points into a > specific direction the real question comes. > > I show players the auction(without extraneous information), give > them the > meaning of the bids, and ask them what they would bid. After they > answer I > ask them their second choice, then their third. > >> From the hesitation in answering the questions I can easily deduce >> how > serious these alternatives are. > > Basically, that is how I do it. As a practical matter (perhaps so obvious that Hans simply left it unstated), we handle L16B1 cases in real life by starting with the last sentence. Unless we "consider[] that [the alleged] infraction of law has resulted in an advantage to the [alleged] offender", we don't even bother to determine whether there was in fact an infraction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 6 17:11:38 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:11:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:34:34 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 5, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:40:10 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>>> Your formulation doesn't completely avoid the problem. If L23 should >>>> really be interpreted as making an adjustment when a player knew the >>>> infraction would probably be to his benefit (Sven) or might have >>>> known >>>> (your interpretation), then L23 is deliberately mistated, for the >>>> sake of >>>> appearance. So, then, if we use L23 against someone, how do we >>>> explain >>>> "could have happened" it to continue this charade? >>> >>> We tell them that we're not accusing them of cheating, no-sirree- >>> never, but that we must rule against them if they do the same thing a >>> deliberate cheat would do, no matter how obviously unintentional. >>> What we do not tell them is that our unstated definition of "the same >>> thing a deliberate cheat would do" includes "something to make us >>> suspicious". >> >> So, to put this in context, there is an opening lead out of turn, >> but the >> leader says he was told it was his lead. I first determine the >> facts -- >> does it seem like the opening leader knew it wasn't his lead? If >> there is >> something to make me suspicious, then I would apply L23 at the end >> of the >> hand. >> >> I am not sure what counts as suspicious. The opponents claiming >> that the >> opening leader knew? The opening leader being an experienced player >> or a >> suspicious person? Suppose there is one person that a few people have >> claimed sometimes cheats. I would always apply L23 on him? I guess it >> would be suspicious if the opening leader knew there was no penalty in >> this situation. Is that enough to apply L23? > > I'm not sure either -- perhaps it's like pornography. Those are > tough decisions, and that's why directors get paid the big bucks. > All we can do is try our best to be fair and impartial. If there > were ready answers to Bob's questions, we wouldn't have a problem > with different directors ruling differently in the same situations. I would much rather walk into the situation and try to determine if the player *could have* known an infraction was to his advantage. You are suggesting that I try to determine if the player actually did know, then calling it a tough decision and not suggesting any way for me to actually make that decision. I am very leary of my ability to determine the truth just by listening to people. I believe other people feel confident in that situation, but I suspect they are fools. And if the player knows that I am really trying to decide if they might have cheated, then it is a much more emotionally-laden decision. And I will be using my own personal opinions about them. Which is hardly a recipe for being fair and impartial. I thought the point of the laws was to avoid these kinds of decisions, and that is why L23 is stated the way it is, and that I should be interpreting it to mean what it says. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 17:28:28 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:28:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:34:34 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> I am not sure what counts as suspicious. The opponents claiming >>> that the >>> opening leader knew? The opening leader being an experienced player >>> or a >>> suspicious person? Suppose there is one person that a few people >>> have >>> claimed sometimes cheats. I would always apply L23 on him? I >>> guess it >>> would be suspicious if the opening leader knew there was no >>> penalty in >>> this situation. Is that enough to apply L23? >> >> I'm not sure either -- perhaps it's like pornography. Those are >> tough decisions, and that's why directors get paid the big bucks. >> All we can do is try our best to be fair and impartial. If there >> were ready answers to Bob's questions, we wouldn't have a problem >> with different directors ruling differently in the same situations. > > I would much rather walk into the situation and try to determine if > the > player *could have* known an infraction was to his advantage. You are > suggesting that I try to determine if the player actually did know, > then > calling it a tough decision and not suggesting any way for me to > actually > make that decision. Actually my suggestion isn't that strong. All I'm saying is that if you "know" that the infraction was committed unintentionally and innocently, you should avoid reading L23 in such a way as to be forced to invoke it anyhow. Of course, you can never absolutely know for sure, so make that "be willing to lay 100-to-1 odds", or whatever definition of "know" you're comfortable with. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:05:41 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:05:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > Actually my suggestion isn't that strong. All I'm saying is that if > you "know" that the infraction was committed unintentionally and > innocently, you should avoid reading L23 in such a way as to be > forced to invoke it anyhow. > > Why? Is this idea of Eric's a novel interpretation of the laws? It sounds to me that Eric will rule that L23's "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" is never present when Eric is quite sure that the player was not aware. If am I playing at the table, I would rather he did not try to do this. I would rather he use the facts of what happened, including what was known at the time of the irregularity, and render a judgement that does not depend on his views as to the "innocence" of the player. That seems like the best justice to me. Will Eric also try to divine the player's actual state of mind for rulings involving the other "could have" laws? I am thinking of laws 16, 54, 55, and 73. One class of player, the ones that Eric calls "innocent," get better rulings from Eric in these cases than another class of player---the ones Eric would not quite call "innocent." Do I understand Eric correctly? I thought Eric was against class-of-player rulings. I agree with Robert's statement: "I am very leary of my ability to determine the truth just by listening to people. I believe other people feel confident in that situation, but I suspect they are fools." Since reading minds in this way cannot really be done with any reliability, it is best not to try. My interpretation of L23 is that directors are not asked to try. They are not asked to determine whether he was aware, only if he could have been aware. To do that, they have a doable task: Was the irregularity likely to help his side given the information that was available at the time? That question seems several orders of magnitude easier than mind reading. That's the question I want Eric to answer if he comes to my table to make a ruling. I want his ruling to be the same every time the objective facts (calls, plays, UI, MI, irregularity) are the same, regardless how much he likes the players at the table. All directors like innocent players and dislike the other kind. But which comes first---the director's decision that he likes the player, or the director's decision that the player is "innocent"? Do you see the bias Eric is introducing into his rulings by favoring "innocent" players? He is giving better rulings to players he likes. Those directors who congratulate themselves on their excellent mind reading---how can we ever know if they did a good job? How would they know? Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110606/22c44214/attachment.html From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:26:04 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 20:26:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] Message-ID: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> Our Big Friend, great Tournament Director, the Big Man of polish bridge, the author of the greatest Scoring System (KOPS) Jan Romanski is died. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jan.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21167 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110606/a9427b50/attachment-0001.jpg From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Jun 6 20:36:03 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 20:36:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] In-Reply-To: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> RIP Jan. Knew him barely, just because of joined interest in scoring/seeding/dealing software. As far as I knew him he was a no frills just do it type of man. I am sure he will be sorely missed. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Lukasz Kalbarczyk Sent: maandag 6 juni 2011 20:26 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] Our Big Friend, great Tournament Director, the Big Man of polish bridge, the author of the greatest Scoring System (KOPS) Jan Romanski is died. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Mon Jun 6 21:00:24 2011 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:00:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] In-Reply-To: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4DED23C8.9020401@t-online.de> I am very sad to hear this. I met him several times at TD courses and at several Bridge events, and every time he was friendly, polite, always willing to talk about all aspects of the game, simply a grand fellow. I am going to miss him. I hope someone puts some Bridge cards in his grave. If the ancient Egyptians are right he is going to need them. Am 06.06.2011 20:26, schrieb ?ukasz Kalbarczyk: > Our Big Friend, great Tournament Director, the Big Man of polish bridge, > the author of the greatest Scoring System (KOPS) > > > Jan Romanski > > > is died. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Mon Jun 6 22:08:59 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:08:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] In-Reply-To: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <35189C17-BB35-41AD-83D8-603AF9E88BE8@btinternet.com> I'm sorry to hear this. I was in the same group as him at San Remo, and he was a great asset. Gordon Rainsford On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:26, ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > Our Big Friend, great Tournament Director, the Big Man of polish > bridge, > the author of the greatest Scoring System (KOPS) > > > Jan Romanski > > > is died. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt Mon Jun 6 22:17:38 2011 From: rui.mlmarques at netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:17:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] In-Reply-To: <35189C17-BB35-41AD-83D8-603AF9E88BE8@btinternet.com> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <35189C17-BB35-41AD-83D8-603AF9E88BE8@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <004301cc2486$c91e1030$5b5a3090$@netvisao.pt> To all my polish friends, my condolences. Jan was a friend, a great friend, and even if we hadn?t crossed paths for some years now, he was always on my mind for all the friendship. It is very sad. Rui Marques Portugal -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:09 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] I'm sorry to hear this. I was in the same group as him at San Remo, and he was a great asset. Gordon Rainsford On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:26, ?ukasz Kalbarczyk wrote: > Our Big Friend, great Tournament Director, the Big Man of polish > bridge, the author of the greatest Scoring System (KOPS) > > > Jan Romanski > > > is died. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 vitoldbr at yandex.ru Mon Jun 6 22:19:08 2011 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:19:08 +0400 Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] In-Reply-To: <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> References: <4DED1BBC.3000501@gmail.com> <00ae01cc2478$971912a0$c54b37e0$@nl> Message-ID: <163101307391548@web153.yandex.ru> Hi all, It is very bad news. During tens years Janek was my friend, colleague and (when I needed it) my teacher. Nobody can replace Him... To jest bardzo zla nowina. Janek przez dlogi lata byl moim przyjacielem, kolega i w razie potrzeby nauczycielem. Byl i zostanie niezastepnoinym... Czesc Jego pamieci. Vitold Brusztunov 06.06.2011, 22:36, "Hans van Staveren" : > RIP Jan. > > Knew him barely, just because of joined interest in scoring/seeding/dealing software. > > As far as I knew him he was a no frills just do it type of man. I am sure he will be sorely missed. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Lukasz Kalbarczyk > Sent: maandag 6 juni 2011 20:26 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Jan Romanski ['] > > Our Big Friend, great Tournament Director, the Big Man of polish bridge, the author of the greatest Scoring System (KOPS) > > ?????????????Jan Romanski > > is died. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 6 23:27:16 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:27:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > > Actually my suggestion isn't that strong. All I'm saying is that if > you "know" that the infraction was committed unintentionally and > innocently, you should avoid reading L23 in such a way as to be > forced to invoke it anyhow. > > Why? Is this idea of Eric's a novel interpretation of the laws? Hardly. It may be a throwback, but it is based on the history behind the laws. Some time ago the ACBL suffered the cost and hassle of defending a couple of lawsuits that were brought against them by pro players who had been sanctioned for cheating, claiming that they had been negligently deprived of livelihood by having been sanctioned without evidence sufficient to stand up in a tort proceding. Shortly afterwards, the laws were revised to prevent future such real-world legal problems by scattering "could have"s and "might have"s throughout TFLB so as to clear the path to sanctioning players much as they had always done without having to make any direct accusations of improper behavior. Which has worked quite well. But it was clear at the time that they neither wanted nor intended to change their view of what constituted sanction-worthy behavior; the changes were there solely to protect them from the sanctioned players' lawyers. > It sounds to me that Eric will rule that L23's "could have been > aware at the time of his irregularity" is never present when Eric > is quite sure that the player was not aware. I can't objectively speak to "quite sure", but am simply suggesting that "could have been" be read in the sense by which "could have been aware" and "was not aware" cannot both be true. I respect the argument that one can never accumulate sufficient evidence to decide definitively that someone "was not aware" in a L23 proceeding, but do not fully accept it. In any case, that's for another thread. > If am I playing at the table, I would rather he did not try to do > this. I would rather he use the facts of what happened, including > what was known at the time of the irregularity, and render a > judgement that does not depend on his views as to the "innocence" > of the player. That seems like the best justice to me. Ordinary justice in the realy world is, by definition, entirely about someone's "views as to the 'innocence' of" someone else. If that's not what it depends on, it isn't any kind of justice, best or otherwise. > Will Eric also try to divine the player's actual state of mind for > rulings involving the other "could have" laws? I am thinking of > laws 16, 54, 55, and 73. One class of player, the ones that Eric > calls "innocent," get better rulings from Eric in these cases than > another class of player---the ones Eric would not quite call > "innocent." Do I understand Eric correctly? Apparently not, as I don't see the connection. Laws 16, 54, 55 and 73 are about "authorized and unauthorized information", "faced opening lead[s] out of turn", "declarer's lead[s] out of turn" and "communication", respectively. The subjects of those laws are not, at least not directly, related to the intention of the player involved. But L23 isn't about "potential damage", which is how Jerry would view it, but rather about "awareness of potential damage". That means that it is all about intention. It is meant to be applied only if there is some possibilty of "awareness". > I thought Eric was against class-of-player rulings. "Class of player" rulings are about bridge ability, and I am indeed against them. Rulings that vary depending on the player's familiarity with the laws and procedures, however, are an entirely different story. Jerry would have me make the identical L23 rulings in otherwise similar cases whether the player involved was fully aware that he was commiting an infraction and could quote verbatim the prescribed rectification for it or obviously had no idea that their action was a legal irregularity. I do not believe that that is what the authors of the laws intended me to do. > I agree with Robert's statement: "I am very leary of my ability to > determine the truth just by listening to people. I believe other > people feel confident in that situation, but I suspect they are > fools." I'm not suggesting heavy psychoanalysis. But, yes, I am willing to go out on a limb and decide, in otherwise identical circumstances, to accept a reasonable but self-serving statement as true if it comes from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report scoring errors in his favor but not if it comes from a player whose last three contacts with me have been on the receiving end of accusations of having committed an infraction deliberately to gain advantage. Does that make me a fool? > Since reading minds in this way cannot really be done with any > reliability, it is best not to try. My interpretation of L23 is > that directors are not asked to try. They are not asked to > determine whether he was aware, only if he could have been aware. > To do that, they have a doable task: Was the irregularity likely > to help his side given the information that was available at the time? That's exactly what I do. Where I differ with Jerry is by including in "the information that was available at the time" not only the information that arose from the action at the table, but also the information that the player brought along in his head when he arrived at the game. > That question seems several orders of magnitude easier than mind > reading. Assessing credibility isn't the same thing as "mind reading". Assessing credibilty is what juries do. Mind reading is what psychics do. > That's the question I want Eric to answer if he comes to my table > to make a ruling. I want his ruling to be the same every time the > objective facts (calls, plays, UI, MI, irregularity) are the same, > regardless how much he likes the players at the table. I claim to be neither perfectly objective nor immune from subconscious influences, but resent the implication that I rule differently depending on how much I "like" the players involved, at least any more than anyone else does. Those who would give more favorable rulings to their friends, deliberately or otherwise, will find a way to do so without having to carefully parse the relevant laws in advance. But Jerry wants me to treat secretary birds exactly as I would treat novices when I come to his table; should that be tested, he will be disappointed. That has nothing to do with whether I "like" the secretary bird or the novice -- or even whether I like Jerry, which I do. > All directors like innocent players and dislike the other kind. > But which comes first---the director's decision that he likes the > player, or the director's decision that the player is "innocent"? Neither. What comes first is the director's knowlege of his -- and, to the extent he is aware of them, other directors' -- prior experiences in relevant situations involving that player. > Do you see the bias Eric is introducing into his rulings by > favoring "innocent" players? He is giving better rulings to > players he likes. That last sentence is a direct libel. I shall assume Jerry did not mean what he wrote. > Those directors who congratulate themselves on their excellent mind > reading---how can we ever know if they did a good job? How would > they know? It's what we get paid for. It really isn't that hard to decide, in the course of a fairly brief exchange, whether a player might or might not have had "awareness of potential damage". Perhaps if you have that little confidence in your ability to distinguish secretary birds from novices you shouldn't be directing bridge games. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 7 01:15:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:15:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: [snip] >>Is this idea of Eric's a novel interpretation of the laws? [snip] Eric Landau: >Hardly. It may be a throwback, but it is based on the history >behind the laws. Some time ago the ACBL suffered the cost and >hassle of defending a couple of lawsuits that were brought >against them by pro players who had been sanctioned for >cheating, claiming that they had been negligently deprived of >livelihood by having been sanctioned without evidence >sufficient to stand up in a tort proceeding. Shortly >afterwards, the laws were revised to prevent future such >real-world legal problems by scattering "could have"s and >"might have"s throughout TFLB so as to clear the path to >sanctioning players much as they had always done without >having to make any direct accusations of improper behavior. >Which has worked quite well. But it was clear at the time >that they neither wanted nor intended to change their view of >what constituted sanction-worthy behavior; the changes were >there solely to protect them from the sanctioned players' >lawyers. [snip] Richard Hills: I disagree with the word "clear" in Eric's last sentence. In my opinion, the words of a rule of a game take precedence over the intent of the rule-makers. Merely because the rule-makers may have "wanted or intended" to make the word "black" have the meaning "white" in Law 23 does not make it so. Eric Landau: [snip] >I'm not suggesting heavy psychoanalysis. But, yes, I am >willing to go out on a limb and decide, in otherwise >identical circumstances, to accept a reasonable but self- >serving statement as true if it comes from a player whose last >three contacts with me have been to report scoring errors in >his favor but not if it comes from a player whose last three >contacts with me have been on the receiving end of accusations >of having committed an infraction deliberately to gain >advantage. Does that make me a fool? [snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion, on his particular long-standing hobby-horse, yes Eric is indeed a fool(1). Any Director who adopted the Landau Law 23 differential rulings would soon be on the receiving end of a real-life lawsuit, which a uniform approach to Law 23 rulings would avoid. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) In my opinion, Eric Landau gives very wise advice on almost all other topics. In my opinion, I give very foolish advice on Gilbert and Sullivan. When you're lying awake with a dismal headache, and your tops are taboo'd by anxiety, I conceive you may use any bidding you choose to indulge in, without impropriety; For your brain is on fire ? your system conspires of usual slumber to plunder you: First your double card goes, and uncovers your nose, and your chair slips demurely from under you; Well, you get some repose in the form of a doze, with hot eye- balls and head ever aching. But your slumbering teems with such horrible dreams that you'd very much better be waking; As you please you are criss-crossing a squeeze, and tossing about in a steamer from Harwich ? Which is something between a large dealing machine and a very small second-class carriage ? And bound on those hard thrills you find Richard Hills (who started that morning from Devon); He's a bit undersized, and you don't feel surprised when he tells you he's only eleven. Well, you're bidding like mad with this singular lad (by the by, the ship's now a four-wheeler), And you're playing spade games, and he calls you bad names when you tell him that "ties pay the dealer"; But this you can't stand, so you concede your hand, but you find game's as cold as an icicle, In your shirt and your socks (the black silk with gold clocks), move for the next round on a bicycle: The slams are a penny, and ever so many are taken by Rothschild and Baring, And just as a few are allotted to you, you awake with a shudder despairing ? You're a regular wreck, with a jack in your neck, and no wonder you snore, for your score's on the floor, and you've needles and pins from your soles to your shins, and your flesh is acreep, for your left leg's asleep, and you've cramp in your toes, and a fly on your nose, and some fluff in your lung, and a feverish tongue, and a thirst that's intense, and a general sense that you haven't been sleeping in clover; But the finesse has worked, and the double was shirked, the event has been long ? ditto, ditto my song ? and thank goodness they're both of them over! With apologies to W.S. Gilbert's Iolanthe -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110606/23c64f1d/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 7 03:30:55 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:30:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> On 6/3/2011 11:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > When I ask the opps whose lead it is, and they tell me, then it is always > to my advantage to commit the infraction of making an opening lead. You mean when they tell you the wrong answer? If they tell you the correct answer, the correct defender had better lead! > Certainly I "could" know this (as Law 23 is usually applied). That's a very interesting point, and it may be a genuine loophole in the Laws. My own opinion is that L23 should apply only when the person who asked has a clear reason to want to be on lead (or _not_ to be on lead if the proper leader is the one who asks), but I don't really know what to do about this. The declaring side can, of course, avoid any problem by giving the correct information, and I have limited sympathy for them if the can't manage to do so. Robert's view that "without further rectification" includes "no L23" is also reasonable. As a general comment, I have a lot of admiration for most of Eric Landau's views, but his memory of the history and intent of L23 differs from mine, and I don't think I've seen anyone but him suggest the interpretation he advocates. Like Robert and others, I think L23 means exactly what it says. It seems to me it's intended to avoid all sorts of coffee-housing and novel forms of Alcatraz Coup, even by players the Director has no reason to suspect. From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jun 7 03:36:29 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 21:36:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> Message-ID: <4DED809D.3070307@nhcc.net> On 6/3/2011 12:08 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > L47E1 is a general law that applies whenever a player makes a lead or play > out of turn under misunderstanding caused by incorrect information from > opponents that it is his turn to lead/play. Yes. > L53A and L54A are more specific laws applicable for the situation otherwise > covered by L47E1 when the next player in rotation after the lead/play out of > turn takes a specific action before attention is called to this > irregularity. The problem is that these Laws fall under the official definition of "rectification," and L47E1 specifies "no further rectification." > L47E1 specifies a rectification while the other two laws just specifies > correct procedures for their respective special situations. If you take them as defining proper procedure rather than as rectifications, then of course there's no problem. That doesn't follow the literal text of the Laws, but maybe it's the best practical approach. > So the time limit implied in L47E1 is when offender's LHO takes the action > that invokes L53A or L54A rather than L47E1 as the case may be (without > attention having been called to the lead/play out of turn). This means a quick opponent can take away the proper leader's right to lead? Or did you mean that declarer becomes dummy, but the proper opponent still has the right to lead? I think that's what ought to happen, but I can't get there from the actual Laws text. > I just cannot see any problem with L54A? This law simply states that if > declarer begins acting as if he were dummy he becomes dummy and must > complete his action as such. There is no need for any time limit in L54A? No problem with L54A itself, and no time limit needed on that one. The question is whether it's a rectification, as it appears to be, or not. It's 47E1 that needs a time limit. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 04:02:12 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:02:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:15 PM, wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman: > > [snip] > > >>Is this idea of Eric's a novel interpretation of the laws? > > [snip] > > Eric Landau: > > >Hardly. It may be a throwback, but it is based on the history > >behind the laws. Some time ago the ACBL suffered the cost and > >hassle of defending a couple of lawsuits that were brought > >against them by pro players who had been sanctioned for > >cheating, claiming that they had been negligently deprived of > >livelihood by having been sanctioned without evidence > >sufficient to stand up in a tort proceeding. Shortly > >afterwards, the laws were revised to prevent future such > >real-world legal problems by scattering "could have"s and > >"might have"s throughout TFLB so as to clear the path to > >sanctioning players much as they had always done without > >having to make any direct accusations of improper behavior. > >Which has worked quite well. But it was clear at the time > >that they neither wanted nor intended to change their view of > >what constituted sanction-worthy behavior; the changes were > >there solely to protect them from the sanctioned players' > >lawyers. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > I disagree with the word "clear" in Eric's last sentence. In > my opinion, the words of a rule of a game take precedence over > the intent of the rule-makers. Merely because the rule-makers > may have "wanted or intended" to make the word "black" have > the meaning "white" in Law 23 does not make it so. > I am certainly with Richard on this. There is a principle of law---though I cannot remember its name---that says that what judges and lawmakers actually do is more important, and more valid, than they said that they did. For deciding the meaning of laws and precedents, their action (i.e., the wording of the law) is more important than their explanation of intent. And here we have a case where the lawmakers did not say why they made the change, but Eric assumes that he knows what their intent was, despite the lack of any written record of intent. His only stated reason was that "this preceded that, therefore, this caused that." That sounds like a logical fallacy to me, and it probably has some Latin name. I would say that it is generally better to follow the law as written than to follow what someone guesses, without any supporting written record, what the intent of the law was. And in the case of L23, we have a law that is rather brilliantly written to avoid director favoritism. Seems best to follow it as written. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 04:19:15 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:19:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 6/3/2011 11:42 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> When I ask the opps whose lead it is, and they tell me, then it is always >> to my advantage to commit the infraction of making an opening lead. > > You mean when they tell you the wrong answer? ?If they tell you the > correct answer, the correct defender had better lead! > >> Certainly I "could" know this (as Law 23 is usually applied). > > That's a very interesting point, and it may be a genuine loophole in the > Laws. Yes, I also think that Robert has found a genuine loophole. It seems to me even deeper than Robert has hinted so far, because after my partner tries the "Is it my lead?" gambit when not on lead, I might have UI that he wants to lead. Yikes! I suspect that Robert has already realized this. > ?My own opinion is that L23 should apply only when the person who > asked has a clear reason to want to be on lead (or _not_ to be on lead > if the proper leader is the one who asks), but I don't really know what > to do about this. ?The declaring side can, of course, avoid any problem > by giving the correct information, and I have limited sympathy for them > if the can't manage to do so. ?Robert's view that "without further > rectification" includes "no L23" is also reasonable. I agree with Robert's view. The loophole is not closed, but it tells directors to ignore the possibility. It is the declaring sides job to close it, other than the potential UI from the question. > > As a general comment, I have a lot of admiration for most of Eric > Landau's views, Oh my, so do I! > but his memory of the history and intent of L23 differs > from mine, I am glad to hear it. > and I don't think I've seen anyone but him suggest the > interpretation he advocates. [...] > Like Robert and others, I think L23 means > exactly what it says. ?It seems to me it's intended to avoid all sorts > of coffee-housing and novel forms of Alcatraz Coup, even by players the > Director has no reason to suspect. I like this viewpoint very much. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 05:42:58 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 22:42:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: Thanks for Eric's careful replies. Of course, I have to clarify. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >> Actually my suggestion isn't that strong. ?All I'm saying is that if >> you "know" that the infraction was committed unintentionally and >> innocently, you should avoid reading L23 in such a way as to be >> forced to invoke it anyhow. >> >> Why? ?Is this idea of Eric's a novel interpretation of the laws? > > Hardly. ?It may be a throwback, but it is based on the history behind > the laws. ?Some time ago the ACBL suffered the cost and hassle of > defending a couple of lawsuits that were brought against them by pro > players who had been sanctioned for cheating, claiming that they had > been negligently deprived of livelihood by having been sanctioned > without evidence sufficient to stand up in a tort proceding. ?Shortly > afterwards, the laws were revised to prevent future such real-world > legal problems by scattering "could have"s and "might have"s > throughout TFLB ?so as to clear the path to sanctioning players much > as they had always done without having to make any direct accusations > of improper behavior. ?Which has worked quite well. ?But it was clear > at the time that they neither wanted nor intended to change their > view of what constituted sanction-worthy behavior; the changes were > there solely to protect them from the sanctioned players' lawyers. Thanks, Eric. You have brought this up before on BLML, but I can never tell whether you think the defamation lawsuits were justified or frivolous. For the record, I think it is possible that some or most of the lawsuits were justified. At least in the USA, you don't get to destroy people's livelihood with guesswork. Personally, I think the lawmakers' change was totally brilliant, and should be followed. I don't consider the change a mere kludge hoping to avoid lawsuits. Instead, it is a fundamental improvement in fairness and consistency---especially consistency, which I consider even more valuable than fairness, but that is a topic for another thread. > >> It sounds to me that Eric will rule that L23's "could have been >> aware at the time of his irregularity" is never present when Eric >> is quite sure that the player was not aware. > > I can't objectively speak to "quite sure", but am simply suggesting > that "could have been" be read in the sense by which "could have been > aware" and "was not aware" cannot both be true. ?I respect the > argument that one can never accumulate sufficient evidence to decide > definitively that someone "was not aware" in a L23 proceeding, but do > not fully accept it. ?In any case, that's for another thread. My use of the phrase "quite sure" was meant to stand for Eric's paragraph: "Of course, you can never absolutely know for sure, so make that "be willing to lay 100-to-1 odds", or whatever definition of "know" you're comfortable with." My "quite sure" stands for Eric's "100-to-1 odds," or whatever definition of quite sure that Eric is comfortable with. He must be comfortable with some definition, or he would not have written the paragraph. > >> If am I playing at the table, I would rather he did not try to do >> this. ?I would rather he use the facts of what happened, including >> what was known at the time of the irregularity, and render a >> judgement that does not depend on his views as to the "innocence" >> of the player. ?That seems like the best justice to me. > > Ordinary justice in the realy world is, by definition, entirely about > someone's "views as to the 'innocence' of" someone else. ?If that's > not what it depends on, it isn't any kind of justice, best or otherwise. This I can disagree with. I don't want a friend of the judge getting his parking ticket removed because the judge knows him to be a good guy. Parking tickets do not depend on intention. And in the game of American football, the referees do not need to know whether or not you intended to be off sides: If you were offsides, you get a five-yard penalty. And speeding violations do not require that the trooper prove that you intended to speed. The kind of justice I want is where the punishment is based objectively on what you did, not who you know, or what the guy in power thinks your intention was. Admittedly, there are exceptions. Planned murder and a planned scheme of illegal bridge communication come to mind, but not L23. > >> Will Eric also try to divine the player's actual state of mind for >> rulings involving the other "could have" laws? ?I am thinking of >> laws 16, 54, 55, and 73. ?One class of player, the ones that Eric >> calls "innocent," get better rulings from Eric in these cases than >> another class of player---the ones Eric would not quite call >> "innocent." ?Do I understand Eric correctly? > > Apparently not, as I don't see the connection. ?Laws 16, 54, 55 and > 73 are about "authorized and unauthorized information", "faced > opening lead[s] out of turn", "declarer's lead[s] out of turn" and > "communication", respectively. ?The subjects of those laws are not, > at least not directly, related to the intention of the player > involved. ?But L23 isn't about "potential damage", which is how Jerry > would view it, but rather about "awareness of potential damage". > That means that it is all about intention. ?It is meant to be applied > only if there is some possibilty of "awareness". This view will not have much support on BLML. > >> I thought Eric was against class-of-player rulings. > > "Class of player" rulings are about bridge ability, and I am indeed > against them. Good. The problem is that your discussions on BLML for this issue have led me to generalize it to some other areas. >?Rulings that vary depending on the player's > familiarity with the laws and procedures, however, are an entirely > different story. I don't see why. How can a director know for sure a player's familiarity of this in the modern Internet age? > ?Jerry would have me make the identical L23 rulings > in otherwise similar cases whether the player involved was fully > aware that he was commiting an infraction and could quote verbatim > the prescribed rectification for it or obviously had no idea that > their action was a legal irregularity. Great job! You summarized my view perfectly. > ?I do not believe that that is > what the authors of the laws intended me to do. > Care to document that? >> I agree with Robert's statement: "I am very leary of my ability to >> determine the truth just by listening to people. I believe other >> people feel confident in that situation, but I suspect they are >> fools." > > I'm not suggesting heavy psychoanalysis. ?But, yes, I am willing to > go out on a limb and decide, in otherwise identical circumstances, to > accept a reasonable but self-serving statement as true if it comes > from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report > scoring errors in his favor but not if it comes from a player whose > last three contacts with me have been on the receiving end of > accusations of having committed an infraction deliberately to gain > advantage. Alright, you have covered about 0.1% of the cases. What about the others? You have not given anything like a general rule. >?Does that make me a fool? Sorry, you asked; yes, I think so, at least in this one aspect. > >> Since reading minds in this way cannot really be done with any >> reliability, it is best not to try. ?My interpretation of L23 is >> that directors are not asked to try. They are not asked to >> determine whether he was aware, only if he could have been aware. >> To do that, they have a doable task: ?Was the irregularity likely >> to help his side given the information that was available at the time? > > That's exactly what I do. Sorry, I do not understand this. It is probably my fault, but I would appreciate clarification. >?Where I differ with Jerry is by including > in "the information that was available at the time" not only the > information that arose from the action at the table, but also the > information that the player brought along in his head when he arrived > at the game. Ah, but that is exactly what I doubt you can know. It is better not to try. > >> That question seems several orders of magnitude easier than mind >> reading. > > Assessing credibility isn't the same thing as "mind reading". > Assessing credibilty is what juries do. ?Mind reading is what > psychics do. This is a somewhat different argument than before, where you said that what I call "mind reading" you would call "knowing your customers." I cannot figure out why you would rather I not call it mind reading. You are, after all, ascertaining what is in your customers' minds. Where else is it but their minds? I can hardly think of any more accurate description. Can you help me? > >> That's the question I want Eric to answer if he comes to my table >> to make a ruling. ?I want his ruling to be the same every time the >> objective facts (calls, plays, UI, MI, irregularity) ?are the same, >> regardless how much he likes the players at the table. > > I claim to be neither perfectly objective nor immune from > subconscious influences, but resent the implication that I rule > differently depending on how much I "like" the players involved, at > least any more than anyone else does. After talking with Eric several times in Florida, including at least two delightful and memorable meals, I have the highest opinion of his honesty and integrity. And he is a delight to talk to. Also, I wish that I could write as well and clearly as Eric can. I even said so to him, though he showed great modesty in wondering what I was talking about. I will explain what I meant, later, probably tomorrow. >?Those who would give more > favorable rulings to their friends, deliberately or otherwise, will > find a way to do so without having to carefully parse the relevant > laws in advance. I would say that those who rule like Eric suggests give favorable rulings to their friends, though they do not intend to. I will argue tomorrow that their view of the laws makes it almost impossible for them to prevent it. > ?But Jerry wants me to treat secretary birds exactly > as I would treat novices when I come to his table; Yes, though I would phrase it differently. I want Eric to treat players he considers to be Secretary Birds exactly as he would treat those he considers Novices when he comes to my table. Eric is mortal, after all, and I want him to follow the laws when he comes to my table. > should that be > tested, he will be disappointed. What Eric means here, I cannot fathom right now. >?That has nothing to do with whether > I "like" the secretary bird or the novice -- or even whether I like > Jerry, which I do. Thanks! And I think Eric is one of the coolest guys I have ever met! > >> All directors like innocent players and dislike the other kind. I kinda wished that someone would appraise this statement of mine. It is rather central to my argument. Actually, I want it to be widely accepted, for I think it is true. All of you directors out there who think I am wrong---please let us know how wrong I am! >> But which comes first---the director's decision that he likes the >> player, or the ?director's decision that the player is "innocent"? > > Neither. It sounds like Eric claims perfect objectivity. Please pardon me for questioning this. Robert's statement comes to mind, that "The psychological literature is overflowing with examples of people being biased by things they aren't aware of." Can even a mind a brilliant as Eric's rise above this? > ?What comes first is the director's knowlege of his -- and, > to the extent he is aware of them, other directors' -- prior > experiences in relevant situations involving that player. I have seen so many examples of directors screwing up these kinds of judgments that it is not easy for me to accept that Eric is above it all, though perhaps an example or two would help me see the light. > >> Do you see the bias Eric is introducing into his rulings by >> favoring "innocent" players? ?He is giving better rulings to >> players he likes. > > That last sentence is a direct libel. ?I shall assume Jerry did not > mean what he wrote. I think I will deal with this in a separate post---perhaps tomorrow. > >> Those directors who congratulate themselves on their excellent mind >> reading---how can we ever know if they did a good job? ?How would >> they know? > > It's what we get paid for. That proves nothing about success. Obama was paid to fix the USA economy, but that does not mean that he has any idea how to do it. My two questions are not yet answered. What someone is expected to do is not the same as what they succeeded at. >?It really isn't that hard to decide, in > the course of a fairly brief exchange, whether a player might or > might not have had "awareness of potential damage". What probabilities are you using now? Is it still 100-to-1 evidence before you imagine that L23 is turned off? > ?Perhaps if you > have that little confidence in your ability to distinguish secretary > birds from novices you shouldn't be directing bridge games. > This sounds like a challenge, and I accept! What test do you have in mind for you to prove your superiority over me in making the distinction you describe? I think that one of us can learn a lot from this exercise! Either you will find that your beliefs of your abilities at what I call mind reading are unfounded, or I will find that others can do much better at it than I. Either way, it is progress, right? The catch is that I would want some good way of knowing whose appraisal was correct, other than just the word of my opponent. Can you arrange that? Jerry Fusselman From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Jun 7 08:08:59 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:08:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] System after insufficient bid Message-ID: <201106070609.p57691gM009919@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> I know that this has been discussed many times. I have not paid too much attention, but I think you are not allowed to have agreements after an insufficient bid by opponents in USA (and perhaps elsewhere). Today however, I had an Eric moment: RHO me LHO pard 2NT(wk, both minors) pass 2C accepts, 3H etc. As a result of this auction and our detailed discussion after I now have an agreement about this sequence, and also if partner does not accept and then bids 3H, and also if partner doubles 2C, or the correction to 3C. I do not expect to have it come up again in my lifetime, but it means I will have to alert the opponents anytime my partner bids over the insufficient bid (or the corrected suffiicient bid). As an Australian director, I usually give a bit of advice to the person facing the insufficient bid. I do not want to have to say "if you accept the insufficient bid, you must not have any discussion of your action with your partner, because it would lead to an implicit agreement which is illegal in the US" Please tell me Richard, that it is not illegal in Australia Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 08:38:48 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:38:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2011/6/7 Jerry Fusselman : >>> Will Eric also try to divine the player's actual state of mind for >>> rulings involving the other "could have" laws? ?I am thinking of >>> laws 16, 54, 55, and 73. ?One class of player, the ones that Eric >>> calls "innocent," get better rulings from Eric in these cases than >>> another class of player---the ones Eric would not quite call >>> "innocent." ?Do I understand Eric correctly? >> >> Apparently not, as I don't see the connection. ?Laws 16, 54, 55 and >> 73 are about "authorized and unauthorized information", "faced >> opening lead[s] out of turn", "declarer's lead[s] out of turn" and >> "communication", respectively. ?The subjects of those laws are not, >> at least not directly, related to the intention of the player >> involved. ?But L23 isn't about "potential damage", which is how Jerry >> would view it, but rather about "awareness of potential damage". >> That means that it is all about intention. ?It is meant to be applied >> only if there is some possibilty of "awareness". > > This view will not have much support on BLML. > Hmm, what are you implying here? Suppose I make an out-of-turn opening bid and gets my partner barred. I chance 3NT, which makes. All other tables have played in 1NT, making 3. Would you adjust my score to 1NT+2? > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 7 09:23:04 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:23:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] System after insufficient bid [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201106070609.p57691gM009919@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Jamie Whyte, Crimes Against Logic, pages 28-29: There was nothing special about Manilow and Gephardt. Other candidates also boasted celebrity endorsements. For example, John Edwards had Dennis Hopper, Howard Dean had Rob Reiner, and John Kerry had Jerry Seinfeld. Dennis Hopper, Rob Reiner, and Jerry Seinfeld are no more qualified to give political advice than Barry Manilow. Celebrity political endorsements are the Authority Fallacy on stilts. The candidates and their campaign managers must know it; they just think the public doesn't. Let's hope they are wrong. Or, failing that, let's hope voters are so promiscuous in their celebrity worship that they get pulled in too many directions. If I were a celebrity-directed voter, for example, only Gephardt would have been ruled out. To choose between Hopper, Reiner, and Seinfeld -- sorry, Edwards, Dean, and Kerry -- I would have had to think about their policies. Tony Musgrove, appeal to Richard Hills' authority: >.....Please tell me Richard, that it is not illegal >in Australia South Pacific Zone Regulating Authority: (Effective 1st June 2008) 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: [snip] Law 40B3 Prior agreements by a partnership to vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or an irregularity committed by ***its own side** is prohibited. [snip] Richard Hills: Ergo, it is not illegal in Australia for the non- offending side to have varied some partnership understandings about its bidding subsequent to an acceptance of an opponent's call-out-of-turn or an acceptance of an opponent's insufficient bid. It is, however, illegal in Australia for the offending side to vary its partnership understandings subsequent to their own call-out-of-turn or their own insufficient bid. The EBU Regulating Authority uses a more nuanced rule: [snip] (f) Under 40B3 (a) a pair is NOT allowed to vary its understandings by prior agreement during the auction or play consequent on a question asked by either side. (g) Under Law 40B3 (b) a pair is allowed to vary its understandings by prior agreement during the auction or play consequent on a response by the opponents to a question by this pair. (h) Under Law 40B3 (c) a pair is NOT allowed to vary its understandings by prior agreement during the auction or play consequent on a response by this pair to a question by the opponents. (j) Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b). [snip] Authoritative Source: EBU Orange Book, pages 34-35 Best wishes Richard Hills on stilts -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110607/e65d69a7/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 15:51:06 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:51:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2011/6/7 Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Suppose I make an out-of-turn opening bid and gets my partner barred. > I chance 3NT, which makes. > All other tables have played in 1NT, making 3. > Would you adjust my score to 1NT+2? > No, certainly not. No one thinks their expected score is likely to improve by barring partner in the scenario you describe. Score stands. Eric and I treat this the same way. Where I differ from Eric is his wish to exempt some players from any possibility of an L23 rectification purely on the grounds that he knows the player's character and he knows them to be, in his words, "innocent." In his view, they are not among the sort of players who would do that sort of thing, so the objective facts (even if barring partner really helps) of the potential L23 situation don't matter. As a side issue, he said that he does not have to be 100% sure of innocence, that something like 99% is good enough to rule out any need to consider L23. In Eric's words, 'All I'm saying is that if you "know" that the infraction was committed unintentionally and innocently, you should avoid reading L23 in such a way as to be forced to invoke it anyhow.' `Of course, you can never absolutely know for sure, so make that "be willing to lay 100-to-1 odds", or whatever definition of "know" you're comfortable with.' I would rather the director stay out of the in the business of appraising character and stating his findings to the table when giving a potential L23 rectification. To me, and I think most of BLML, the central issue is whether or not barring partner was an expected benefit at the time of the infraction, not whether the infractor happens to be someone that the director knows has spotless character. I was guessing that no one on BLML besides Eric would admit that they would exempt a player from L23 rectifications just because of his favorable general knowledge about the player. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 7 16:33:32 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:33:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > As a general comment, I have a lot of admiration for most of Eric > Landau's views, but his memory of the history and intent of L23 > differs > from mine, and I don't think I've seen anyone but him suggest the > interpretation he advocates. Like Robert and others, I think L23 > means > exactly what it says. It seems to me it's intended to avoid all sorts > of coffee-housing and novel forms of Alcatraz Coup, even by players > the > Director has no reason to suspect. I'd offer as the strongest piece of evidence for my interpretation of the history behind L23 that its authors chose to call it "Awareness of Potential Damage". That certainly seems to imply that L23 was intended only to be used if the TD finds that there might have been awareness of potential damage. This interpretation does not in any way interfere with applying L23 to any kind of coffee-housing or Alcatraz-coup-like actions. The phrase "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side" applies with equal force any time a player does anything that he "could have been aware... etc." It does not require any awareness on the part of the offender that his attempt to gain an advantage by his action was an irregularity. "Awareness of potential damage" does not imply "awareness of potential infraction". In that light, Steve's last sentence is meaningless. If the director determines that a player coffee-housed, how can he have no reason to suspect him of coffee-housing? That he may have no reason to suspect him of knowing that coffee-housing is illegal isn't relevant at all. We have no disagreement in those cases where the potential damage to the NOS is a direct consequence of the irregular action itself (as in Steve's examples). Where I disagree with Jerry is about those cases in which the potential damage results from the prescribed rectification for the irregular action. A player who is unaware of the rectification prescribed for his irregularity could not have been aware that his opponents could well be damaged as a direct consequence of the application of that rectification. That flatly contradicts Jerry's view, which demands invoking L23 any time any player takes the same explicit actions at the table that a knowledgeable cheater would. I suspect we differ only in those cases in which Jerry would be prepared to rule that the purported offender "'could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non- offending side' if only he had taken the time and trouble to memorize the relevant sections of the lawbook" when all parties are prepared to stipulate that he has not done so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 7 16:58:53 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:58:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <4DED809D.3070307@nhcc.net> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> <4DED809D.3070307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 6/3/2011 12:08 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> L47E1 is a general law that applies whenever a player makes a lead >> or play >> out of turn under misunderstanding caused by incorrect information >> from >> opponents that it is his turn to lead/play. > > Yes. > >> L53A and L54A are more specific laws applicable for the situation >> otherwise >> covered by L47E1 when the next player in rotation after the lead/ >> play out of >> turn takes a specific action before attention is called to this >> irregularity. > > The problem is that these Laws fall under the official definition of > "rectification," and L47E1 specifies "no further rectification." > >> L47E1 specifies a rectification while the other two laws just >> specifies >> correct procedures for their respective special situations. > > If you take them as defining proper procedure rather than as > rectifications, then of course there's no problem. That doesn't > follow > the literal text of the Laws, but maybe it's the best practical > approach. > >> So the time limit implied in L47E1 is when offender's LHO takes >> the action >> that invokes L53A or L54A rather than L47E1 as the case may be >> (without >> attention having been called to the lead/play out of turn). > > This means a quick opponent can take away the proper leader's right to > lead? Or did you mean that declarer becomes dummy, but the proper > opponent still has the right to lead? I think that's what ought to > happen, but I can't get there from the actual Laws text. > >> I just cannot see any problem with L54A? This law simply states >> that if >> declarer begins acting as if he were dummy he becomes dummy and must >> complete his action as such. There is no need for any time limit >> in L54A? > > No problem with L54A itself, and no time limit needed on that one. > The > question is whether it's a rectification, as it appears to be, or not. > It's 47E1 that needs a time limit. The way to resolve this is to read the first two sentences of L54A1 separately. That "declarer may spread his hand" is indeed a rectification of an irregular OLOOT. But when L47E1 applies, the declarer does not have this "may" option, so if he does spread his hand, he has committed a separate irregularity. The separate rectification for this irregularity -- declarer's spreading his hand when he is not entitled to do so -- is specified in the remaining portion of L54A1, which applies whether or not the first sentence does. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 17:00:19 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:00:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > We have no disagreement in those cases where the potential damage to > the NOS is a direct consequence of the irregular action itself (as in > Steve's examples). ?Where I disagree with Jerry is about those cases > in which the potential damage results from the prescribed > rectification for the irregular action. ?A player who is unaware of > the rectification prescribed for his irregularity could not have been > aware that his opponents could well be damaged as a direct > consequence of the application of that rectification. ?That flatly > contradicts Jerry's view, which demands invoking L23 any time any > player takes the same explicit actions at the table that a > knowledgeable cheater would. Thanks, right, you got it. > > I suspect we differ only in those cases in which Jerry would be > prepared to rule that the purported offender "'could have been aware > at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non- > offending side' if only he had taken the time and trouble to memorize > the relevant sections of the lawbook" when all parties are prepared > to stipulate that he has not done so. > Who needs to memorize anything? I was aware of how to bar partner before I had earned five master points, though I memorized nothing. Some players learn what bars partner even faster than that. You see what happened at the table, you hear the ruling, and you kind of grasp cause and effect. People can learn stuff about the laws without having to memorize parts of the law book. Anyway, I don't consider ignorance of the law a valid defense from rectifications. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 7 17:21:22 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:21:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:15 PM, wrote: > >> Jerry Fusselman: >> >>>> Is this idea of Eric's a novel interpretation of the laws? >> >> Eric Landau: >> >>> Hardly. It may be a throwback, but it is based on the history >>> behind the laws. Some time ago the ACBL suffered the cost and >>> hassle of defending a couple of lawsuits that were brought >>> against them by pro players who had been sanctioned for >>> cheating, claiming that they had been negligently deprived of >>> livelihood by having been sanctioned without evidence >>> sufficient to stand up in a tort proceeding. Shortly >>> afterwards, the laws were revised to prevent future such >>> real-world legal problems by scattering "could have"s and >>> "might have"s throughout TFLB so as to clear the path to >>> sanctioning players much as they had always done without >>> having to make any direct accusations of improper behavior. >>> Which has worked quite well. But it was clear at the time >>> that they neither wanted nor intended to change their view of >>> what constituted sanction-worthy behavior; the changes were >>> there solely to protect them from the sanctioned players' >>> lawyers. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> I disagree with the word "clear" in Eric's last sentence. In >> my opinion, the words of a rule of a game take precedence over >> the intent of the rule-makers. Merely because the rule-makers >> may have "wanted or intended" to make the word "black" have >> the meaning "white" in Law 23 does not make it so. > > I am certainly with Richard on this. There is a principle of > law---though I cannot remember its name---that says that what judges > and lawmakers actually do is more important, and more valid, than they > said that they did. For deciding the meaning of laws and precedents, > their action (i.e., the wording of the law) is more important than > their explanation of intent. Of course. I do not quarrel with this. If it weren't true, Congress wouldn't need to pass technical corrections to misprinted laws. > And here we have a case where the lawmakers did not say why they made > the change, but Eric assumes that he knows what their intent was, > despite the lack of any written record of intent. His only stated > reason was that "this preceded that, therefore, this caused that." > That sounds like a logical fallacy to me, and it probably has some > Latin name. > > I would say that it is generally better to follow the law as written > than to follow what someone guesses, without any supporting written > record, what the intent of the law was. And in the case of L23, we > have a law that is rather brilliantly written to avoid director > favoritism. Seems best to follow it as written. We all agree that we must follow the law as written. But the law as written uses the phrase "could have been", which can be used in more than one sense, and we disagree over which we should read it as. Both Jerry and I can validly claim to be reading the law "as written", and neither of us can validly accuse the other of not doing so. It is only when the law as written is subject to alternative interpretations that are equally consistent with its actual wording that we look to the intention of the authors to determine how to interpret it. Jerry's opinion, which I respect, seems to be that "avoid[ing] director favoritism" is a sufficiently desirable end in itself to mandate interpreting ambiguous passages in TFLB in such a way as to accomplish that end whenever possible, regardless of the law's history or its author's intent. He may be right, but that's a separate discussion. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 7 22:14:44 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:14:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:42 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> Ordinary justice in the realy world is, by definition, entirely about >> someone's "views as to the 'innocence' of" someone else. If that's >> not what it depends on, it isn't any kind of justice, best or >> otherwise. > > This I can disagree with. I don't want a friend of the judge getting > his parking ticket removed because the judge knows him to be a good > guy. Parking tickets do not depend on intention. And in the game of > American football, the referees do not need to know whether or not you > intended to be off sides: If you were offsides, you get a five-yard > penalty. And speeding violations do not require that the trooper > prove that you intended to speed. The kind of justice I want is where > the punishment is based objectively on what you did, not who you know, > or what the guy in power thinks your intention was. Jerry misunderstands me. If you do the crime, you do the time, regardless of intention. But ordinary justice typically involves weighing the conflicting testimony of an accuser claiming that the accused did the crime and an accused claiming that he did not do the crime. "Justice", in that case, is for a judge and/or a jury to listen to both sides, and their supporting witnesses, and then make a determination as to which side's account was truthful. Jerry calls this process "mind reading". I call it adjudication. > Admittedly, there are exceptions. Planned murder and a planned scheme > of illegal bridge communication come to mind, but not L23. > >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> Will Eric also try to divine the player's actual state of mind for >>> rulings involving the other "could have" laws? I am thinking of >>> laws 16, 54, 55, and 73. One class of player, the ones that Eric >>> calls "innocent," get better rulings from Eric in these cases than >>> another class of player---the ones Eric would not quite call >>> "innocent." Do I understand Eric correctly? >> >> Apparently not, as I don't see the connection. Laws 16, 54, 55 and >> 73 are about "authorized and unauthorized information", "faced >> opening lead[s] out of turn", "declarer's lead[s] out of turn" and >> "communication", respectively. The subjects of those laws are not, >> at least not directly, related to the intention of the player >> involved. But L23 isn't about "potential damage", which is how Jerry >> would view it, but rather about "awareness of potential damage". >> That means that it is all about intention. It is meant to be applied >> only if there is some possibilty of "awareness". > > This view will not have much support on BLML. This is the substance of the disagreement. If you do the crime, you do the time, but what is the crime that L23 redresses? Is the crime the potentially damaging action, or is it the "awareness of potential damage"? I argue that it does mean something that the authors of L23 chose to title it "Awareness of Potential Damage". If Jerry is right and BLML reaches a strong consensus that, title notwithstanding, "awareness" has nothing whatsoever to do with the applicability of L23, I shall certainly be forced to rethink my interpretation. >>> I thought Eric was against class-of-player rulings. >> >> "Class of player" rulings are about bridge ability, and I am indeed >> against them. > > Good. The problem is that your discussions on BLML for this issue > have led me to generalize it to some other areas. > >> Rulings that vary depending on the player's >> familiarity with the laws and procedures, however, are an entirely >> different story. > > I don't see why. How can a director know for sure a player's > familiarity of this in the modern Internet age? He can't. No more than a judge or jury can in real life. His job is to make decisions based on his assessment of the available evidence, not solely and entirely on that portion of the evidence he knows "for sure", which may be nil. Or, some philosophers would argue, will always be nil. >> Jerry would have me make the identical L23 rulings >> in otherwise similar cases whether the player involved was fully >> aware that he was commiting an infraction and could quote verbatim >> the prescribed rectification for it or obviously had no idea that >> their action was a legal irregularity. > > Great job! You summarized my view perfectly. > >> I do not believe that that is >> what the authors of the laws intended me to do. > > Care to document that? Sorry, can't. I speak only from knowing something of the history of the ACBL, and from loose talk at the time, which may have been nothing but rumor and speculation. Much was made in the wake of the ACBL's legal difficulties of the need to revise the laws to prevent future lawsuits based on findings of cheating. It is conceivable that, at the same time, the folks running the ACBL had a massive epiphany and decided that they wanted to abandon the way they had always ruled the game and instead make the laws totally objective, and that they then pressed the WBF to rewrite the laws solely to that end, which had nothing whatsoever to do with those lawsuits or the idea of preventing them in the future, but that would certainly seem to be enough of a coincidence of timing to strain credibility. >>> I agree with Robert's statement: "I am very leary of my ability to >>> determine the truth just by listening to people. I believe other >>> people feel confident in that situation, but I suspect they are >>> fools." >> >> I'm not suggesting heavy psychoanalysis. But, yes, I am willing to >> go out on a limb and decide, in otherwise identical circumstances, to >> accept a reasonable but self-serving statement as true if it comes >> from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report >> scoring errors in his favor but not if it comes from a player whose >> last three contacts with me have been on the receiving end of >> accusations of having committed an infraction deliberately to gain >> advantage. > > Alright, you have covered about 0.1% of the cases. What about the > others? You have not given anything like a general rule. > >> Does that make me a fool? > > Sorry, you asked; yes, I think so, at least in this one aspect. Then Jerry must think that all those judges and jurists, who make determinations of witnesses' credibility -- what Jerry calls "mind reading" -- every hour of every working day are fools as well. I do not understand how Jerry can expect bridge to be adjudicated without anyone ever making such "foolish" judgments. Without them, there is no distinction between testimony and proof, or between testimony and irrelevance. >>> Since reading minds in this way cannot really be done with any >>> reliability, it is best not to try. My interpretation of L23 is >>> that directors are not asked to try. They are not asked to >>> determine whether he was aware, only if he could have been aware. >>> To do that, they have a doable task: Was the irregularity likely >>> to help his side given the information that was available at the >>> time? >> >> That's exactly what I do. > > Sorry, I do not understand this. It is probably my fault, but I would > appreciate clarification. > >> Where I differ with Jerry is by including >> in "the information that was available at the time" not only the >> information that arose from the action at the table, but also the >> information that the player brought along in his head when he arrived >> at the game. > > Ah, but that is exactly what I doubt you can know. It is better > not to try. When a judge is confronted by a witness who testifies he saw the accused commit a crime, and an accused who testified that the witness was mistaken, the person he saw wasn't him, the judge cannot know for sure who is telling the truth. Does Jerry really think it better for him not to try? >>> That question seems several orders of magnitude easier than mind >>> reading. >> >> Assessing credibility isn't the same thing as "mind reading". >> Assessing credibilty is what juries do. Mind reading is what >> psychics do. > > This is a somewhat different argument than before, where you said that > what I call "mind reading" you would call "knowing your customers." I > cannot figure out why you would rather I not call it mind reading. > You are, after all, ascertaining what is in your customers' minds. > Where else is it but their minds? I can hardly think of any more > accurate description. Can you help me? No. Call it whatever you like. But whatever you call it, directing bridge games requires doing it. >> But Jerry wants me to treat secretary birds exactly >> as I would treat novices when I come to his table; > > Yes, though I would phrase it differently. I want Eric to treat > players he considers to be Secretary Birds exactly as he would treat > those he considers Novices when he comes to my table. Eric is mortal, > after all, and I want him to follow the laws when he comes to my > table. > >>> Those directors who congratulate themselves on their excellent mind >>> reading---how can we ever know if they did a good job? How would >>> they know? >> >> It's what we get paid for. > > That proves nothing about success. Obama was paid to fix the USA > economy, but that does not mean that he has any idea how to do it. Nor even that it is possible. > My > two questions are not yet answered. What someone is expected to do is > not the same as what they succeeded at. Here Jerry seems to undercut his own argument, that the laws must not be read as "expecting" us to "read minds" precisely because we know that we will not always "succeed" at it. >> It really isn't that hard to decide, in >> the course of a fairly brief exchange, whether a player might or >> might not have had "awareness of potential damage". > > What probabilities are you using now? Is it still 100-to-1 evidence > before you imagine that L23 is turned off? > >> Perhaps if you >> have that little confidence in your ability to distinguish secretary >> birds from novices you shouldn't be directing bridge games. > > This sounds like a challenge, and I accept! What test do you have in > mind for you to prove your superiority over me in making the > distinction you describe? I think that one of us can learn a lot from > this exercise! Either you will find that your beliefs of your > abilities at what I call mind reading are unfounded, or I will find > that others can do much better at it than I. Either way, it is > progress, right? I make no claim whatsoever to be superior to Jerry in my ability to actually make those distinctions, merely in my willingness to give it my best try and live with the outcome. No, I can't read minds perfectly, but I do not see that as a reason to be paralyzed by indecision when I can't make a determination with 100% certainty due to my lacking that ability, nor as a reason to insist that the laws must be interpreted in such a way that I might never find myself in that position. > The catch is that I would want some good way of knowing whose > appraisal was correct, other than just the word of my opponent. Can > you arrange that? Interpreting the law in such a way as to give directors leeway in their decisions implies giving directors the discretion to decide when to take advantage of that leeway, and conversely. I actually do agree with Jerry that identical circumstances should produce identical rulings regardless of the individuals involved. Where we disagree is as to whether the determination of "identical circumstances" must be confined strictly to actions that occurred at the table. I'm entirely confident that were I to find myself directing the Blue Ribbon finals, any L23 ruling I made would be identical to what Jerry would have done, at least insofar as the ruling depends on the at- issue interpretation of L23. But Jerry's view would mandate that he make exactly the same rulings at the Tuesday afternoon game at the country club as he would in the Blue Ribbon finals, which I well might not do. So if he wants to test the efficacy of our relative views, I suggest the following: Arrange to direct the Tuesday afternoon game at the country club, or whatever his local equivalent is, for several weeks. Any time there is a potential application of L23 to be adjudicated, take care to give precisely the same ruling as you would in the Blue Ribbon finals. Count the number of times this requires you to rule in a manner which you believe is different from the way you would rule under my interpretation of the same law. When the count reaches four, if, at your next game, your club has as many as half the number of regulars you started with, you win. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 22:21:11 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:21:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > I'd offer as the strongest piece of evidence for my interpretation of > the history behind L23 that its authors chose to call it "Awareness > of Potential Damage". ?That certainly seems to imply that L23 was > intended only to be used if the TD finds that there might have been > awareness of potential damage. > [from the introduction to the 2007 Laws] Many headings present in the 1997 Laws have been removed in the interests of streamlining their appearance. Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law [...]. But Eric seems to want to limit the application of L23 based primarily on the heading. I think that headings are often too abbreviated to be valid for use as "the strongest evidence" of what laws mean. I am fine with this heading, for it helps me locate the law, but the meat is in the law itself. Jerry Fusselman From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jun 7 22:40:31 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:40:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] System after insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <201106070609.p57691gM009919@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201106070609.p57691gM009919@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <3C84AF22-C6A4-4A0F-A5C8-6522AD2D6FCF@starpower.net> On Jun 7, 2011, at 2:08 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > I know that this has been discussed many times. I have > not paid too much attention, but I think you are not > allowed to have agreements after an insufficient bid > by opponents in USA (and perhaps elsewhere). Today > however, I had an Eric moment: > > RHO me LHO pard > 2NT(wk, both minors) pass 2C accepts, 3H > etc. > > As a result of this auction and our detailed discussion after > I now have an agreement about this sequence, and also > if partner does not accept and then bids 3H, and also > if partner doubles 2C, or the correction to 3C. I do > not expect to have it come up again in my lifetime, but it > means I will have to alert the opponents anytime > my partner bids over the insufficient bid (or the corrected > suffiicient bid) Which isn't a problem. The problem arises when regulations forbid you to have such an agreement, in which case you will have to suffer through a director call, a likely committee hearing, and presumably an adverse score adjustment, any time your partner bids over any future IB (or its correction). > As an Australian director, I usually give a bit of advice to > the person facing the insufficient bid. I do not want to > have to say "if you accept the insufficient bid, you must > not have any discussion of your action with your partner, > because it would lead to an implicit agreement which is > illegal in the US" Please tell me Richard, that it is not > illegal in Australia That misunderstands the concept of implicit agreement. If the person accepts IB and then discusses his action with his partner, that produces an *explicit* agreement. If you have no such discussion, however, you will still be presumed to have observed your partner's action and the holding on which he based it, which will make it easier for you to interpret similar (or alternative) actions in the future. *That's* what is meant by *implicit* agreement, and nothing you tell your players will allow them to avoid it. Because L40 mandates that explicit and implicit agreements be treated identically, you cannot make it an infraction to reach an explicit agreement through discussion without making it an identical infraction to encounter the situation for the second time even if you have had no overt discussion of your actions on the previous occasion. Historically, this has been a problem because certain lawmakers, desirous of outlawing certain classes of explicit agreements, failed to grasp the implications of L40. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 8 00:32:54 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:32:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] deprived? (1) Message-ID: From today: 1NT P 3H P 3NT P 4S P P P P The opening leader asks the meaning of 3H, which was not alerted. Opener says something to the effect that it doesn't have a meaning or he doesn't know the meaning but he is now treating it as a transfer. The opening leader infers from the 3NT rebid that opener does not have hearts, so he leads a heart. Dummy comes down with AQxxx of hearts, and the defense has lost a critical tempo. A reasonable choice, a club, sets the contract. One perspective: There was no damage. The 3H bid very plausibly did not have a meaning -- with hearts, responder can use Jacoby transfer. Players often assign a conventional meaning to the 3 level bids, and I think this couple did for the minors, but the slot for 3H was blank on their convention card. So the 3H response plausibly was assigned no meaning in their system. And in fact it was a transfer. If the meaning actually is hearts, then that suggests declarer does not have hearts. Note also that opener treated the 3H bid as having no meaning -- he did not bid hearts with five of them. There was a failure to alert the 3H, so the defense was misinformed when they passed 3H. But the issue is opening lead, and the mistake was corrected by then. Another perspective: The defense was misinformed. There is a difference between "I all along thought 3H was meaningless" and "I now have no idea what 3H means." It is plausible that opener assumed 3H meant hearts, bid accordingly, and now has changed his mind in the face of the 4S bid. He obviously did not make this distinction clear to the defenders. So, with the lack of alert, it was plausible to the defenders that he took 3H as showing hearts. Which is right? I guess that the defense was misled by they meaning of the 3NT rebid. But they never asked the meaning of that bid. The critical issue may be whether the defense has a right to know how one player interprets their partner's bid. Obviously, they have a right to ask this. But do they really have a right to that information? From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 00:42:04 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:42:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> References: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > [... Law 16 is] about "authorized and unauthorized > information"[.] ?The subject[ of that] law[ is] not, > at least not directly, related to the intention of the player > involved. ?But L23 isn't about "potential damage", which is how Jerry > would view it, but rather about "awareness of potential damage". > That means that it is all about intention. ?It is meant to be applied > only if there is some possibilty of "awareness". > [Law 23] Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * as, for example, by partner?s enforced pass. [Law 16B3] When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > We all agree that we must follow the law as written. ?But the law as > written uses the phrase "could have been", which can be used in more > than one sense, and we disagree over which we should read it as. Alright, I am almost sure that I can summarize what Eric is saying here. Let's see if I get it right. He is saying, I think, that the director's test for "could have been aware" includes a check for "was in fact aware," and if he is 99% sure that the player was not aware (at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side), then that player should be immune from L23 rectification. I still find that amazing, and I wonder if Eric would allow the player he was about to rule against to try to convince him of his innocence by any of the following: 1. Don't you remember, my last three contacts with you were to report scoring errors? and only one was in my favor! 2. Don't you remember, I just started bridge last week, how can I know this bit about enforced pass? 3. My friend John is your friend too. You trust John, and I think John will vouch that I am categorically incapable of committing this kind of infraction. He is over there, ask him! 4. This is my first time playing bridge in my life. 5. I always studiously avoid knowing the laws of bridge, and I solemnly swear that I never heard of enforced pass before in my life. Do you really want these kinds of dialogs at the table after an L23 scenario comes up? Or perhaps this indemnity against L23 that you want to give for certain people is only a gift you would give when you thought it right on your own initiative, and you would never brook any discussion or evidence about it. I would not like it either way, I admit. But more to my main point, I would think by this reasoning, that a L16B3 rectification could have the same defense---i.e., that "could have" in L16B3 should include a check for "did." As I compare the wording in these two laws, it seems that your way in L23 implies something for potential Law 16B3 cases: You would also have to find that there is at least a 1% chance that the player is capable of using the hesitation, say, for his benefit. Furthermore, if as a player you call the director thinking it is a Law 16B3 case, apparently you have to believe that there is at least a 1% chance that the player intentionally used the hesitation to help his side. The director call is therefore tantamount to a declaration that you are sure the opponent is not clearly an honest player. And yet, I know that Eric does not think that, for we have this exchange from January: [Jerry Fusselman, January 15, 2011, in "Alain's case revisited"] Please consider the noncompetitive auction 1S-2S 3C-...3S 4S. I.e., there was a slow 3S signoff after the 3C game try. It gets raised to 4S anyway by a hand that some players would have taken straight to game (instead of 3C), but no one would [have] tried for a slam. Please also assume that the slow signoff demonstrably shows extras. In the play, it easily makes ten tricks, as it should in just about all cases, and both sides play it well. [I want to consider the following four cases of what the player who bid 4S might give as a justification:] 1. When I bid 3C, I forgot my distribution points, so I changed my mind as to what my hand was worth even before LHO passed. 2. I was always planning to go to game, and I was just using 3C to try to confuse the opponents. We have not done this trick ever before, but this is a big event, so I was trying new stuff. 3. I meant to bid 3D, but I goofed, and since I was borderline anyway for a game try, I just went to game ignoring my partner's response. [4. I did not notice the hesitation at the time, though I do not deny that it happened.] Please assume that each explanation is honest and that the director somehow knows this. I am really curious as to what it would take for a wise director to allow 4S, given that 3C was a game try and 3S was a sign off. [Eric Landau's response, January 18, 2011] Impossible by stipulation. "Given that 3C was a game try" (presumably so intended), we must conclude that the player was trying for game. [This] mandates a finding of infraction. [Jerry, now] In these cases, I have stipulated that the director knows that Mr. 4S did not use the hesitation to his advantage. The director knows that the player did not do anything to his advantage. He knows that the player magnificently self-aware and never lies. And yet Eric says a finding of infraction is mandated nevertheless. He thinks that no player is protected from any possible finding of an L16B3 infraction just because the director personally happens to know wonderful things about the player and that the player would never really do such a thing as a true L16B3 infraction. I agree with Eric here, but not for his wish to give certain players protection from any possible L23 infraction. I don't see why he won't treat L23 in the same way as L16B3 in that knowing (or thinking he knows) the character of the player is not critical information for making a rectification. Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 8 00:42:47 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:42:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] deprevied (II) Message-ID: Purely hypothetical. I often ask declarer what dummy's bid meant right after partner has made his opening lead. I am not interested in dummy, which I am going to see; I am interested in what declarer expects from dummy. It would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less than what declarer expects. So. I ask what a bid by dummy means, and dummy answers! Then declarer agrees. Am I possibly damaged? I am not even positive there is an infraction. In any case, the normal route for protection involves UI, which won't protect me here. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 8 01:00:51 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:00:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] deprived? (1) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: [snip] >The critical issue may be whether the defense has a right >to know how one player interprets their partner's bid. >Obviously, they have a right to ask this. Richard Hills: My rule of thumb, which has usually served me well over the years, is when someone says "obviously" it is very much _not_ obvious. A player has a right only to ask about the opponents' partnership understandings. A player does not have the right to ask an opponent how that opponent will interpret their partner's call. See Law 40B6(a): "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Nor indeed does a player have to disclose an inference drawn from looking at that player's own cards. For example, occasionally I have given a correct explanation of partner's denial cue bid response (in accordance with the Ali-Hills pre-existing explicit mutual partnership understanding) which I knew at the time to be a misbid, due to me observing the relevant card in my own hand. Robert Frick: >But do they really have a right to that information? Richard Hills: No. The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that stumbling over the fact that the wheels are coming off the opponents' system is AI to your side, but that your side does not necessarily have the "right to that information". Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110607/e9a1759c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 8 01:36:57 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:36:57 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Juvenal (circa 60 - circa 130), Roman satirist: Nemo repente fuit turpissimus. [No one ever suddenly became depraved.] Robert Frick: >Purely hypothetical. I often ask declarer what dummy's >bid meant right after partner has made his opening lead. >I am not interested in dummy, which I am going to see; I >am interested in what declarer expects from dummy. It >would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less >than what declarer expects. > >So. I ask what a bid by dummy means, and dummy answers! >Then declarer agrees. Am I possibly damaged? I am not >even positive there is an infraction. In any case, the >normal route for protection involves UI, which won't >protect me here. Richard Hills: Yes, dummy has hypothetically committed a Law 20F2 infraction, as dummy was not "...the partner of the player whose action is explained". However, to my mind Bob's hypothetical question about the to-be-revealed-in-a-matter-of-seconds dummy is also an unduly slow play infraction of Law 90B2. And it runs the risk of the Director deeming the hypothetical question a deceptive question infracting Law 73F. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110607/1ec3cb1c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 8 03:53:06 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:53:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >I am certainly with Richard on this. There is a principle of >law---though I cannot remember its name---that says that what >judges and lawmakers actually do is more important, and more >valid, than they said that they did. For deciding the meaning >of laws and precedents, their action (i.e., the wording of >the law) is more important than their explanation of intent. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: obiter dictum, n. (pl. -ta). Casual remark, esp. judge's opinion expressed incidentally & without binding force. [L, = thing said by the way] Jerry Fusselman: >And here we have a case where the lawmakers did not say why >they made the change, but Eric assumes that he knows what >their intent was, despite the lack of any written record of >intent. His only stated reason was that "this preceded that, >therefore, this caused that." That sounds like a logical >fallacy to me, and it probably has some Latin name. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: post, Latin prep. After: post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this & therefore owing to this (as motto of those who confuse sequence with consequence) Jerry Fusselman: >I would say that it is generally better to follow the law as >written than to follow what someone guesses, without any >supporting written record, what the intent of the law was. And >in the case of L23, we have a law that is rather brilliantly >written to avoid director favoritism. Seems best to follow it >as written. David Stevenson, 7th December 2004: >>This last post misunderstands the whole principle and >>application of Law 72B1 [now the 2007 Law 23]. Maybe the >>player did not revoke intentionally, but Law 72B1 [now the >>2007 Law 23] means that the TD does not have to make such a >>determination. If there is a situation where a cheat could >>benefit then a TD can invoke Law 72B1 [now the 2007 Law 23] >>without any determination as to whether this player has acted >>unintentionally or unethically. >> >>It does not matter that the revoke was inadvertent: he could >>have known it was to his benefit to revoke, thus Law 72B1 [now >>the 2007 Law 23] applies. >> >>The Bridge Encyclopedia is wrong - or, more correctly, out of >>date - in that the Alcatraz Coup is now covered by Law 72B1 >>[now the 2007 Law 23]. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110608/dd51dab7/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 05:15:22 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:15:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > As I've pointed out before, if one insists on reading the ambiguous > phrase "could have been aware" in L23 as referring to some abstractly > logical theoretical possibility, one would be at a loss to find an > infraction that winds up benefiting the OS to which it wouldn't be > automatically applied. Neither Steve, nor Richard, nor David Stevenson, 7th December 2004, nor I, think of it this way. It is not "some abstractly logical theoretical possibility" that we are looking for with a enforced pass that just happens to work in some shocking way no one ever expected. But we would all likely find an L23 violation when an insufficient 5H is bid by a player who probably wants partner to pass from now on. I do like the way David Stevenson said it back in 2004, as quoted by Richard: "Maybe the player did not revoke intentionally, but Law 72B1 [now the 2007 Law 23] means that the TD does not have to make such a determination. If there is a situation where a cheat could benefit then a TD can invoke Law 72B1 [now the 2007 Law 23] without any determination as to whether this player has acted unintentionally or unethically." The way a mathematician might state it is something like this: If the information that the infractor had at the time of his infraction makes the expected value of his result higher with the infraction and automatic rectification than he would have gotten with no infraction, then we hit him with L23, whether or not we think he did it intentionally or knowingly. I hope Eric can see that this is not some abstractly logical theoretical possibility. >?Both common sense and the history behind L23 > tell us, rather, to interpret it as referring to circumstances in > which there may be reason to suspect that the offender actually might > have "been aware" and making a deliberate attempt to gain advantage > by his action. No need to think about this aspect at all for the rectification, though you might if you are contemplating a disciplinary hearing. Not having to think about this issue saves a lot of time and frees you from fears of favoritism. No one is suggesting that we award an L23 rectification every time an enforced pass happens to work out well against all odds and to everyone's surprise. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 05:58:41 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:58:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Actually my suggestion isn't that strong. ?All I'm saying is that if > you "know" that the infraction was committed unintentionally and > innocently, you should avoid reading L23 in such a way as to be > forced to invoke it anyhow. > > Of course, you can never absolutely know for sure, so make that "be > willing to lay 100-to-1 odds", or whatever definition of "know" > you're comfortable with. > What definition of "know" are you comfortable with, Eric? I'll assume assume that being willing to lay 100-to-1 odds, the example you give, is good enough for you. I will ask my most burning question for you, and I am sure that you will insult no one on BLML in your answer, if you are willing to answer at all. Suppose that Robert Frick is the one who bid an insufficient 5H with a hand that probably wants partner to shut up. Would you lay 100-to-1 odds that he did not do it to gain any advantage? I would. Same for Grattan, Richard, Steve, Adam, Marv, Eric, Herman, Sven, well, okay, probably all of the big names on BLML. If I was directing while following your rule (above) about L23, they would all be exempt from any possible L23 rectification. But people I know nothing about and who have more than 5 master points, they would be liable for L23 rectifications if I followed your guideline. Is this how you want it handled? I am following your guideline to the letter, but my end result sure looks like favoritism. Though not my intention when following your guideline, I am giving better rulings to players I like. Or perhaps you take a dimmer view of the ethics of some BLMLers than I do. If it came up at a table you were directing, you would have to announce your negative judgment of a BLMLer, or possibly a friend. Is this what you want? I think it would be a nasty blow to anyone who knows this fact: That you will not make an L23 rectification against anyone except someone you think is capable of, well, basically cheating. When I rule under L23, they have no such worries. I simply ask myself whether the expected value of the result they get was greater with the infraction and rectification than with neither, given the information he had at the time. I make no judgement about the player's motives, intelligence, or knowledge. My decision is impersonal, saying nothing about my personal opinion of the player, and therefore much easier to bear by everyone at the table, including the NOS. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 07:30:26 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 00:30:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: As promised yesterday, I will now address the issue that Eric called "direct libel." I will try to handle the issue better this time. Perhaps I should just quote this from Richard Hills: "A canonical example of a Law 23 infraction is East-West bidding constructively in diamonds and North-South using the favourable vulnerability to bid preemptively in spades. East bids 6D, South saves in 6S, West bids 7D and South doubles out-of-turn holding the ace of diamonds. North's enforced Pass means that North does not take the phantom sacrifice in 7S. Whether North-South are little old ladies who are always smiling, or whether North- South are unsmiling joyless experts who like winning ugly, in both cases the Director applies Law 23." I entirely agree with this. I will use this example where South doubles out of turn and gets his predictably great result. Eric would apparently let the little old ladies who are always smiling off if he knows (or almost sure knows) their character to be excellent. Also, he would let them off if he knew that they were beginners. And he says that he would let them off if the self-serving statement "comes from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report scoring errors in [her] favor."---June 6. Hardly objective, I think, but that is what he said. Maybe I can do this no more clearly than Richard, but I will try to give it my own approach. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> Since reading minds in this way cannot really be done with >> any reliability, it is best not to try. My interpretation of L23 >> is that directors are not asked to try. They are not asked to >> determine whether he was aware, only if he could have been >> aware. To do that, they have a doable task: Was the >> irregularity likely to help his side given the information >> that was available at the time? [...] >> That's the question I want Eric to answer if he comes to my table >> to make a ruling. ?I want his ruling to be the same every time the >> objective facts (calls, plays, UI, MI, irregularity) ?are the same, >> regardless how much he likes the players at the table. > > I claim to be neither perfectly objective nor immune from > subconscious influences, but resent the implication that I rule > differently depending on how much I "like" the players involved, at > least any more than anyone else does. > >?Those who would give more > favorable rulings to their friends, deliberately or otherwise, will > find a way to do so without having to carefully parse the relevant > laws in advance. I am not concerned very much with these people. I am more concerned with those who rule in favor of their friends when they think it is justified because they know them so well. > >> Do you see the bias Eric is introducing into his rulings by >> favoring "innocent" players? ?He is giving better rulings to >> players he likes. > > That last sentence is a direct libel. ?I shall assume Jerry did not > mean what he wrote. Please permit me to explain what I meant. When any director's personal knowledge about a player is central to his L23 ruling, as it is for Eric, the end result will look exactly like favoritism. It will be indistinguishable from favoritism, even if the director is as wonderfully fair as Eric. This is a theorem I intend to prove now: Let Mr. X refer to any director who rules L23 like Eric recommends. Mr. X uses his personal knowledge as to the likelihood that South knows about the enforced-pass rule plus his likelihood that South would ever cheat in this way even if he did know. If Mr. X thinks that South is a totally honest person who assures Mr. X that nothing evil has happened, then Eric would have Mr. X rule that no L23 rectification is warranted. The Souths that Mr. X thinks would not do this are highly correlated with the Souths that Mr. X likes. Therefore, the players that Mr. X likes are likely to be immune to rectifications by Mr. X, and the players that Mr. X dislikes are likely to be subject to rectifications. Thus, the players that Mr. X likes will fare better under Mr. X's rulings, and this looks exactly like ugly, nasty favoritism, even though it was totally unintentional. This is what I was trying to say. Did I do better this time? Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 08:03:22 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:03:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/6/8 : > Juvenal (circa 60 - circa 130), Roman satirist: > > Nemo repente fuit turpissimus. > [No one ever suddenly became depraved.] > > Robert Frick: > >>Purely hypothetical. I often ask declarer what dummy's >>bid meant right after partner has made his opening lead. >>I am not interested in dummy, which I am going to see; I >>am interested in what declarer expects from dummy. It >>would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less >>than what declarer expects. >> >>So. I ask what a bid by dummy means, and dummy answers! >>Then declarer agrees. Am I possibly damaged? I am not >>even positive there is an infraction. In any case, the >>normal route for protection involves UI, which won't >>protect me here. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, dummy has hypothetically committed a Law 20F2 > infraction, as dummy was not "...the partner of the > player whose action is explained". Correct. > > However, to my mind Bob's hypothetical question about the > to-be-revealed-in-a-matter-of-seconds dummy is also an > unduly slow play infraction of Law 90B2. And it runs the > risk of the Director deeming the hypothetical question a > deceptive question infracting Law 73F. Incorrect. It's entirely correct to ask this question at this time. Look up L41B. L90B2 doesn't apply at all, as one hasn't reached the play period yet, before the OL has been faced one is in the Clarification Period. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 8 09:20:47 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:20:47 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>..... >>However, to my mind [the opening leader's partner asking >>a] hypothetical question about the to-be-revealed-in-a- >>matter-of-seconds dummy is also an unduly slow play >>infraction of Law 90B2. And it runs the risk of the >>Director deeming the hypothetical question a deceptive >>question infracting Law 73F. Harald Skj?ran: >Incorrect. >It's entirely correct to ask this question at this time. >Look up L41B. Richard Hills: Partially incorrect. The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that a specific Law over-rides a more general Law. So despite the general permission granted by Law 41B for the opening leader's partner to ask a question, the specific Law 73F prohibits questions with "no demonstrable bridge reason". However, it is open to debate whether asking a question for the sole purpose of discovering whether the opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding is or is not a "bridge reason". (My vote is No.) Harald Skj?ran: >L90B2 doesn't apply at all, as one hasn't reached the play >period yet, before the OL has been faced one is in the >Clarification Period. Richard Hills: Very incorrect. Perhaps this misinterpretation of Law 90B2 is due to a flawed Norwegian translation of the Lawbook. Definitions: Play ? 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead. 2. The aggregate of plays made. 3. The period during which the cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board. Law 90B2: The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): unduly slow play by a contestant. Richard Hills: To someone with the unfair advantage of English as a first language, "play" in Law 90B2 corresponds to Definition #4. That is, Definition #4 could expand Law 90B2 to read: "...unduly slow calling and/or playing by a contestant." If the Skj?ran interpretation was correct, Law 90B2 would instead be reworded to read, pursuant to Definition #3: "...undue slowness during the play period by a contestant." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110608/7a3f3d76/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 8 09:52:16 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:52:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] deprevied (II) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DEF2A30.3000101@skynet.be> Well, it is my firm belief that you are not entitled to knwo what people think their system is, only what the system really is. Since that is what you actually get, there is not reason to complain. Herman. Robert Frick wrote: > Purely hypothetical. I often ask declarer what dummy's bid meant right > after partner has made his opening lead. I am not interested in dummy, > which I am going to see; I am interested in what declarer expects from > dummy. It would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less than what > declarer expects. > > So. I ask what a bid by dummy means, and dummy answers! Then declarer > agrees. Am I possibly damaged? I am not even positive there is an > infraction. In any case, the normal route for protection involves UI, > which won't protect me here. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3686 - Release Date: 06/07/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 8 09:58:30 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:58:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2011/6/8: >> Juvenal (circa 60 - circa 130), Roman satirist: >> >> Nemo repente fuit turpissimus. >> [No one ever suddenly became depraved.] >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>> Purely hypothetical. I often ask declarer what dummy's >>> bid meant right after partner has made his opening lead. >>> I am not interested in dummy, which I am going to see; I >>> am interested in what declarer expects from dummy. It >>> would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less >>> than what declarer expects. >>> >>> So. I ask what a bid by dummy means, and dummy answers! >>> Then declarer agrees. Am I possibly damaged? I am not >>> even positive there is an infraction. In any case, the >>> normal route for protection involves UI, which won't >>> protect me here. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Yes, dummy has hypothetically committed a Law 20F2 >> infraction, as dummy was not "...the partner of the >> player whose action is explained". > > Correct. > >> >> However, to my mind Bob's hypothetical question about the >> to-be-revealed-in-a-matter-of-seconds dummy is also an >> unduly slow play infraction of Law 90B2. And it runs the >> risk of the Director deeming the hypothetical question a >> deceptive question infracting Law 73F. > > Incorrect. > It's entirely correct to ask this question at this time. Look up L41B. > L90B2 doesn't apply at all, as one hasn't reached the play period yet, > before the OL has been faced one is in the Clarification Period. > I entirely agree with Harald. While one is not entitled to know how Declarer interpreted Dummy's call, one is entitled to know what it meant, even if one is going to see the cards immediately after. When Declarer bids 4S over Dummy's opening of 1NT, is it important to know whether they are playing 15-17 (so declarer probably has 10 points) or 13-15 (so declare has 12), even when the 15 points are clearly visible on the table. But for that, it might be best to wait until after dummy came down, and then ask whatever it is not yet known by dummy's cards. Herman. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section >> Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 >> DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 10:00:38 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:00:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/6/8 : > Richard Hills: > >>>..... >>>However, to my mind [the opening leader's partner asking >>>a] hypothetical question about the to-be-revealed-in-a- > >>>matter-of-seconds dummy is also an unduly slow play >>>infraction of Law 90B2. And it runs the risk of the >>>Director deeming the hypothetical question a deceptive >>>question infracting Law 73F. > > Harald Skj?ran: > >>Incorrect. >>It's entirely correct to ask this question at this time. >>Look up L41B. > > Richard Hills: > > Partially incorrect. The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that > a specific Law over-rides a more general Law. So despite > the general permission granted by Law 41B for the opening > leader's partner to ask a question, the specific Law 73F > prohibits questions with "no demonstrable bridge reason". ???? And L41B isn't specific? > > However, it is open to debate whether asking a question > for the sole purpose of discovering whether the opponents > have had a bidding misunderstanding is or is not a "bridge > reason". (My vote is No.) The purpose for the question wasn't to discover any bidding misunderstanding. It was to have the auction explained, and to be able to create a picture of declarers hand. > > Harald Skj?ran: > >>L90B2 doesn't apply at all, as one hasn't reached the play >>period yet, before the OL has been faced one is in the >>Clarification Period. > > Richard Hills: > > Very incorrect. Perhaps this misinterpretation of Law 90B2 > is due to a flawed Norwegian translation of the Lawbook. I have the original English version of the Lawbook at my disposal. > > Definitions: > > Play ? 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a > trick, including the first card, which is the lead. 2. The > aggregate of plays made. 3. The period during which the > cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls and plays > on a board. L90B2 read: "unduly slow play by a contestand". The player in question wasn't on lead, since the OL wasn't faced yet. Thus, he couldn't play a card, and in no way could he play slowly. How L90B2 should apply in this situation is very hard to understand for anyone, with one excemption. Richard: If you can't be serious, please refrain from replying to my posts. If you tried to be funny, you didn't succeed. > > Law 90B2: > > The following are examples of offences subject to procedural > penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): > unduly slow play by a contestant. > > Richard Hills: > > To someone with the unfair advantage of English as a first > language, "play" in Law 90B2 corresponds to Definition #4. > That is, Definition #4 could expand Law 90B2 to read: To someone with the advantage of English as a language and the unfair ability to read and understand bridge law, "play" in Law 90B2 corresponds to Definition #3. > > "...unduly slow calling and/or playing by a contestant." > > If the Skj?ran interpretation was correct, Law 90B2 would > instead be reworded to read, pursuant to Definition #3: > > "...undue slowness during the play period by a contestant." > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 8 10:34:06 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:34:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005701cc25b6$d492d550$7db87ff0$@online.no> Richard Hills: [?] Harald Skj?ran: >L90B2 doesn't apply at all, as one hasn't reached the play >period yet, before the OL has been faced one is in the >Clarification Period. Richard Hills: Very incorrect. Perhaps this misinterpretation of Law 90B2 is due to a flawed Norwegian translation of the Lawbook. Definitions: Play ? 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead. 2. The aggregate of plays made. 3. The period during which the cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board. Law 90B2: The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): unduly slow play by a contestant. Richard Hills: To someone with the unfair advantage of English as a first language, "play" in Law 90B2 corresponds to Definition #4. That is, Definition #4 could expand Law 90B2 to read: "...unduly slow calling and/or playing by a contestant." If the Skj?ran interpretation was correct, Law 90B2 would instead be reworded to read, pursuant to Definition #3: "...undue slowness during the play period by a contestant." There is nothing wrong in the Norwegian translations of Law 90B2 or definitions of ?play?, and Harald?s understanding that Law 90B2 only applies during the play period is certainly a misunderstanding. However, this is entirely irrelevant: Law 90B2 includes the word ?unduly? so it clearly does not apply in any case where there is sufficient bridge reason (or otherwise legal justification) for the time spent on any of the activities making up the complete play on the board including legal questions and answers during the clarification period. And RHO is certainly entitled to a clarification of the declaring side?s agreements, these will not necessarily be revealed on seeing dummy?s hand. Besides, if misinformation during the auction is revealed from the answers to questions by RHO during the clarification period then the auction can still be rolled back and continued, this possibility is no longer available after dummy?s cards have been faced. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110608/624fc4e7/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 8 14:04:51 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:04:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net><6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net><6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net><3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: <5739E24869B74C1AB8D713178E3EE754@G3> [Jerry Fusselman] Eric would apparently let the little old ladies who are always smiling off if he knows (or almost sure knows) their character to be excellent. Also, he would let them off if he knew that they were beginners. And he says that he would let them off if the self-serving statement "comes from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report scoring errors in [her] favor."---June 6. Hardly objective, I think, but that is what he said. Maybe I can do this no more clearly than Richard, but I will try to give it my own approach. I am not concerned very much with these people. I am more concerned with those who rule in favor of their friends when they think it is justified because they know them so well. Please permit me to explain what I meant. When any director's personal knowledge about a player is central to his L23 ruling, as it is for Eric, the end result will look exactly like favoritism. It will be indistinguishable from favoritism, even if the director is as wonderfully fair as Eric. This is a theorem I intend to prove now: Let Mr. X refer to any director who rules L23 like Eric recommends. Mr. X uses his personal knowledge as to the likelihood that South knows about the enforced-pass rule plus his likelihood that South would ever cheat in this way even if he did know. If Mr. X thinks that South is a totally honest person who assures Mr. X that nothing evil has happened, then Eric would have Mr. X rule that no L23 rectification is warranted. The Souths that Mr. X thinks would not do this are highly correlated with the Souths that Mr. X likes. Therefore, the players that Mr. X likes are likely to be immune to rectifications by Mr. X, and the players that Mr. X dislikes are likely to be subject to rectifications. Thus, the players that Mr. X likes will fare better under Mr. X's rulings, and this looks exactly like ugly, nasty favoritism, even though it was totally unintentional. This is what I was trying to say. Did I do better this time? {Nigel Guthrie] I agree with Jerry. The director should take care to rule the same way with friends or enemies, with acquaintances and strangers. He should take history into account only if it is a matter of *official* record, for example "pysch records" or "ruling/appeal records". I remember a similar argument with Richard Hills who felt that the director should take his unblemished reputation into account when ruling at his table. By ignoring his personal relationships, the director reduces the likelihood of resentment and libel actions by players. It also caters for the reality that directors are human-beings and like any of us are prone to to subconscious bias and rationalisation. An off-topic example of understandable bias would be the reflex- reaction of directors and law-makers to rule "simplification". From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 8 14:30:40 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:30:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be> References: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8AE3F27D2C4848EAA123E72412C9090A@G3> [Herman De Wael] I entirely agree with Harald. While one is not entitled to know how Declarer interpreted Dummy's call, one is entitled to know what it meant, even if one is going to see the cards immediately after. When Declarer bids 4S over Dummy's opening of 1NT, is it important to know whether they are playing 15-17 (so declarer probably has 10 points) or 13-15 (so declare has 12), even when the 15 points are clearly visible on the table. But for that, it might be best to wait until after dummy came down, and then ask whatever it is not yet known by dummy's cards. [Nigel] I agree with Herman and Harald. You are entitled to know opponent's methods. The law-book should define "agreement" clearly to resolve this issue. The meaning is clear enough when both players are singing from the same hymn-book but often they are not. In practice, partners are often confused and have different understandings about the meaning of a call. I think you should be entitled to both the systemic meaning of an opponent's bid and to the possibly confused explanation by the player's partner. Another example: an undiscussed situation arises where a logical application of partnership understandings in related contexts defines a clear implicit agreement. But a player gets confused and follows a flawed chain of reasoning to an illogical conclusion. Again, IMO, when an opponent gives this mistaken explanation, his partner should correct it to what he deems to be the logical meaning. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 8 15:01:12 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:01:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00B5E10C-409C-47B7-83DC-CCA2740EDA35@starpower.net> On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> We have no disagreement in those cases where the potential damage to >> the NOS is a direct consequence of the irregular action itself (as in >> Steve's examples). Where I disagree with Jerry is about those cases >> in which the potential damage results from the prescribed >> rectification for the irregular action. A player who is unaware of >> the rectification prescribed for his irregularity could not have been >> aware that his opponents could well be damaged as a direct >> consequence of the application of that rectification. That flatly >> contradicts Jerry's view, which demands invoking L23 any time any >> player takes the same explicit actions at the table that a >> knowledgeable cheater would. > > Thanks, right, you got it. > >> I suspect we differ only in those cases in which Jerry would be >> prepared to rule that the purported offender "'could have been aware >> at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non- >> offending side' if only he had taken the time and trouble to memorize >> the relevant sections of the lawbook" when all parties are prepared >> to stipulate that he has not done so. > > Who needs to memorize anything? I was aware of how to bar partner > before I had earned five master points, though I memorized nothing. > Some players learn what bars partner even faster than that. You see > what happened at the table, you hear the ruling, and you kind of grasp > cause and effect. People can learn stuff about the laws without > having to memorize parts of the law book. It's hard to imagine everyone at the table being prepared to stipulate that a purported offender was so ignorant of the laws that he did not know that his action would bar his partner from the bidding; indeed, that is the classic example for the application of L23. But the question that started this discussion was about whether L23 might be applied to a player who asks whether it's his lead, when it isn't, but is told that it is, leads out of turn, at which point declarer starts to face his hand. I note that the wise heads in this forum never quite reached a consensus as to what the proper rectification for this situation should be. Jerry would have us invoke L23 regardless, treating the player in question as if he was fully aware of the possibility of the consequences of his action as they developed, when not even BLML, after considerable discussion, could figure out what those were. > Anyway, I don't consider ignorance of the law a valid defense from > rectifications. I'm not sure why. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a well-worn cliche, but what it means is that if you commit an offense you are not forgiven by virtue of not having known that that particular offense was against the law. That's not what we're talking about here. Consider someone accused in court of running a complicated financial scam that depended on an obscure loophole in the tax code. If he could prove to the court's satisfaction that there was no way he could possibly have known of the critical loophole on which his alleged scheme depended, would you not expect the court to find him not guilty? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 8 15:22:51 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:22:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4226BFB8-682C-40E8-A10B-3713894E1F54@starpower.net> On Jun 7, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I'd offer as the strongest piece of evidence for my interpretation of >> the history behind L23 that its authors chose to call it "Awareness >> of Potential Damage". That certainly seems to imply that L23 was >> intended only to be used if the TD finds that there might have been >> awareness of potential damage. > > [from the introduction to the 2007 Laws] Many headings present in the > 1997 Laws have been removed in the interests of streamlining their > appearance. Where headings remain they do not limit the application of > any law [...]. > > But Eric seems to want to limit the application of L23 based primarily > on the heading. > > I think that headings are often too abbreviated to be valid for use as > "the strongest evidence" of what laws mean. I am fine with this > heading, for it helps me locate the law, but the meat is in the law > itself. The titles in TFLB do not have "weight of law"; we apply the laws as written regardless of thier titles. But when the laws as written are ambiguous, and we are trying to disambiguate them based on the intent of their authors, the title that they chose to give the law when they wrote it is likely, absent some official clarification, to be the best evidence we have of what they were thinking at the time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jun 8 16:05:45 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:05:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8AE3F27D2C4848EAA123E72412C9090A@G3> References: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be> <8AE3F27D2C4848EAA123E72412C9090A@G3> Message-ID: <4DEF81B9.8060908@skynet.be> Nigel has some valid points, and one invalid one: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > I entirely agree with Harald. > While one is not entitled to know how Declarer interpreted Dummy's call, > one is entitled to know what it meant, even if one is going to see the > cards immediately after. When Declarer bids 4S over Dummy's opening of > 1NT, is it important to know whether they are playing 15-17 (so declarer > probably has 10 points) or 13-15 (so declare has 12), even when the 15 > points are clearly visible on the table. > But for that, it might be best to wait until after dummy came down, and > then ask whatever it is not yet known by dummy's cards. > > [Nigel] > I agree with Herman and Harald. You are entitled to know opponent's methods. > indeed. > The law-book should define "agreement" clearly to resolve this issue. The > meaning > is clear enough when both players are singing from the same hymn-book but > often > they are not. > correct. > In practice, partners are often confused and have different understandings > about the meaning of a call. I think you should be entitled to both the > systemic > meaning of an opponent's bid and to the possibly confused explanation by the > player's partner. > not correct. The opponents can always be entitled to just one of these two. it is up to the director to ascertain which one is the "true meaning", but the entitlement is then only to this meaning and not to both of them. > Another example: an undiscussed situation arises where a logical application > of > partnership understandings in related contexts defines a clear implicit > agreement. > But a player gets confused and follows a flawed chain of reasoning to an > illogical > conclusion. Again, IMO, when an opponent gives this mistaken explanation, > his > partner should correct it to what he deems to be the logical meaning. > Indeed, the logical implicit meaning can be one of those that the director determines to be the true meaning. In such a case, the director may rule misbid. When that happens, the opponents have therefore received a correct explanation and they are not entitled, in addition, to the flawed thoughts of the bidder. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3687 - Release Date: 06/07/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Wed Jun 8 16:40:50 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:40:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] deprevied (II) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1060828562.136683.1307544050326.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Purely hypothetical. I often ask declarer what dummy's bid meant right > after partner has made his opening lead. I am not interested in dummy, > which I am going to see; I am interested in what declarer expects from > dummy. It would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less than what > declarer expects. > > So. I ask what a bid by dummy means, and dummy answers! Then declarer > agrees. Am I possibly damaged? I am not even positive there is an > infraction. In any case, the normal route for protection involves UI, > which won't protect me here. There is a violation of correct procedure, but that does not mean that you are damaged. If dummy's answer does not correctly describe their systematic agreements, then there is MI; and furthermore failure by declarer to correct the MI. That MI might cause you or partner to draw wrong conclusions about declarer's hand. Thomas From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 8 17:19:08 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:19:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DEF81B9.8060908@skynet.be> References: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be><8AE3F27D2C4848EAA123E72412C9090A@G3> <4DEF81B9.8060908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6AE8A57BE9784B609F0D905612AA491A@G3> {Richard Hills] The opponents can always be entitled to just one of these two. it is up to the director to ascertain which one is the "true meaning", but the entitlement is then only to this meaning and not to both of them. [Nigel] Richard's interpretation creates hard practical problems. Suppose, at the end of the auction, Declarer, South corrects North's mistaken explanation of South's call. In the light of North's misunderstanding, North's subsequent bids may reveal additional information, useful to East-West, the defenders. Is such information, resulting from the mistaken explanation authorised to East-West? If not, how many players are capable of the mental contortions needed to unwind and ignore information so acquired? From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 19:54:19 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:54:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:20 AM, wrote: > Richard Hills: > > >>..... > >>However, to my mind [the opening leader's partner asking > >>a] hypothetical question about the to-be-revealed-in-a- > > >>matter-of-seconds dummy is also an unduly slow play > >>infraction of Law 90B2. And it runs the risk of the > >>Director deeming the hypothetical question a deceptive > >>question infracting Law 73F. > > Harald Skj?ran: > > > >Incorrect. > >It's entirely correct to ask this question at this time. > >Look up L41B. > > Richard Hills: > > Partially incorrect. The WBF Laws Committee has ruled that > a specific Law over-rides a more general Law. So despite > the general permission granted by Law 41B for the opening > leader's partner to ask a question, the specific Law 73F > prohibits questions with "no demonstrable bridge reason". > > However, it is open to debate whether asking a question > for the sole purpose of discovering whether the opponents > have had a bidding misunderstanding is or is not a "bridge > reason". (My vote is No.) > But in this case there is a clear bridge reason. I want to know what declarer thought dummy had. I want to know this because (presuming declarer is semi-rational) his having placed the contract based on those expectations gives me insight into his (declarer's hand) Collins > > > Harald Skj?ran: > > > >L90B2 doesn't apply at all, as one hasn't reached the play > >period yet, before the OL has been faced one is in the > >Clarification Period. > > Richard Hills: > > Very incorrect. Perhaps this misinterpretation of Law 90B2 > is due to a flawed Norwegian translation of the Lawbook. > > Definitions: > > Play ? 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a > trick, including the first card, which is the lead. 2. The > aggregate of plays made. 3. The period during which the > cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls and plays > on a board. > > Law 90B2: > > The following are examples of offences subject to procedural > penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): > unduly slow play by a contestant. > > Richard Hills: > > To someone with the unfair advantage of English as a first > language, "play" in Law 90B2 corresponds to Definition #4. > That is, Definition #4 could expand Law 90B2 to read: > > "...unduly slow calling and/or playing by a contestant." > > If the Skj?ran interpretation was correct, Law 90B2 would > instead be reworded to read, pursuant to Definition #3: > > "...undue slowness during the play period by a contestant." > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110608/77da6d82/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 20:31:03 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:31:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <00B5E10C-409C-47B7-83DC-CCA2740EDA35@starpower.net> References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> <00B5E10C-409C-47B7-83DC-CCA2740EDA35@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > It's hard to imagine everyone at the table being prepared to > stipulate that a purported offender was so ignorant of the laws that > he did not know that his action would bar his partner from the > bidding; So why did Eric introduce such a stipulation into the discussion? I have maintained all along that directors don't need ascertain anything like this to make an L23 rectification: No need ask about it or even think about it. > ?But the question that started this discussion was about whether > L23 might be applied to a player who asks whether it's his lead, when > it isn't, but is told that it is, leads out of turn, at which point > declarer starts to face his hand. ?I note that the wise heads in this > forum never quite reached a consensus as to what the proper > rectification for this situation should be. I will get to this below. >?Jerry would have us > invoke L23 regardless, treating the player in question as if he was > fully aware of the possibility of the consequences of his action as > they developed, when not even BLML, after considerable discussion, > could figure out what those were. No, he would not. As I said on Monday in this thread, in response to Steve, I would not apply L23 to a player who asks whether it is his lead and it turns out it is not. Here was the exchange: [Steve Willner] Robert's view that "without further rectification" includes "no L23" is also reasonable. [me] I agree with Robert's view. I have two reasons that there should be no L23 rectification in this case. 1. "Without further rectification" really sounds to me like L23 is turned off. 2. L23 only specifies rectification for an offender---someone who has committed an irregularity. Robert's original example was this: "They ask if the contract is 4S by East. Their opponents answer yes. The actual contract is 4S by West. So there is an opening lead out of turn." Asking who is on lead has not been defined as an irregularity. Nor is asking the question in a leading way. I see only one infraction here---EW agreeing that the contract is 4S by East. The infractor (or perhaps I should say primary infractor) is EW. It is their problem, their mistake, not NS's. If you state the contract wrong, you can expect problems for yourself. I don't think you get to cause problems for the NOS by misstating who is on lead. I put all of the guilt on EW in this case---it makes ruling the game a lot easier. Everyone is playing by the same rules. If EW wants L23 rectifications against NS, they should get their statements about who is declarer right and wait for NS to make the first infraction. Jerry Fusselman From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 8 21:12:29 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 20:12:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6AE8A57BE9784B609F0D905612AA491A@G3> References: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be><8AE3F27D2C4848EAA123E72412C9090A@G3><4DEF81B9.8060908@skynet.be> <6AE8A57BE9784B609F0D905612AA491A@G3> Message-ID: <6A26723938EC4355BBEFF21ACE75B52E@G3> [Richard Hills] The opponents can always be entitled to just one of these two. it is up to the director to ascertain which one is the "true meaning", but the entitlement is then only to this meaning and not to both of them. [Nigel] Mixed up North and South :( corrected below :) Richard's interpretation creates hard practical problems. Suppose, at the end of the auction, Dummy, North corrects South's mistaken explanation of North's' call. In the light of South's misunderstanding, South's subsequent bids may have revealed additional information, useful to defenders. Is such information, resulting from the mistaken explanation authorised to East-West? If not, how many players are capable of the mental contortions needed to unwind and ignore information so acquired? From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jun 8 21:26:01 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:26:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Deprived In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Summary? I have the *right* to learn the true partnership agreement. When I ask, I perforce learn that player's opinion of the partnership agreement. So, without screens, I have the *power* to learn what one player thinks the other player's bids meant, but not the right. Then, I am not protected if an irregularity by the opponents prevents me from finding out what a player thought his partner's bid meant. This was explicit in the second example. I ask declarer what dummy's bid means, dummy gives the true partnership understanding. There is no rectification for my loss of information -- if declarer had misunderstood the bid, that would be useful information I simply do not get. It is a way of seeing the first example. The opening leader could have asked what the 3H bid meant when it was first made. The answer would have been something like meaningless or I don't know. Then he would have known how to interpret that player's 3NT bid. But there was no alert of the 3H bid, suggesting that it was natural. So he had no way to know to ask that question and no way to know that the player was taking his partner's 3H bid as meaningless. Later, he is told that the 3H bid was meaningless or maybe a transfer. This is a correct explanation of the bid, but does not address his state of mind when he bid 3NT. But the opening leader is not entitled to that information, so there is no rectification just because an irregularity misled him about it. -------------------------------------- Reminder: Example 1 1NT P 3H(1) P 3NT(2) P 4S P P P (1) Player meant to bid 2H, transfer. The 3H bid presumably is not used by them. So 'meaningless' is presumably an accurate desription, as it 'meant as transfer' (2) This player bid 3NT with five hearts. Opening lead presumed that this bid showed only two hearts. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 8 21:29:10 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:29:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6A26723938EC4355BBEFF21ACE75B52E@G3> References: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be><8AE3F27D2C4848EAA123E72412C9090A@G3><4DEF81B9.8060908@skynet.be> <6AE8A57BE9784B609F0D905612AA491A@G3> <6A26723938EC4355BBEFF21ACE75B52E@G3> Message-ID: <4DEFCD86.8040105@nhcc.net> On 6/8/2011 3:12 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Mixed up North and South The main problem is you've mixed up "authorized" and "entitled." The information about a mixup is authorized if opponents happen to get it, but they are not entitled to that information and won't receive redress based on their having received it. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 8 22:10:16 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:10:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] System after insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <201106070609.p57691gM009919@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201106070609.p57691gM009919@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4DEFD728.20201@nhcc.net> On 6/7/2011 2:08 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > ... I think you are not > allowed to have agreements after an insufficient bid > by opponents in USA (and perhaps elsewhere). The ACBL revoked that rule about 1997 if not before. The current rule is that you are not allowed to "vary your agreements" after an opponent's IB. I'm not sure what that means, but I _think_ it says that, for example, after 1S-(1C oops 2C)- , all your calls have to have the same meaning as after 1S-(2C)-. The effect of negative inferences from not having accepted 1C is not clear. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 8 22:11:45 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:11:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DEFCD86.8040105@nhcc.net> References: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be><8AE3F27D2C4848EAA123E72412C9090A@G3><4DEF81B9.8060908@skynet.be> <6AE8A57BE9784B609F0D905612AA491A@G3><6A26723938EC4355BBEFF21ACE75B52E@G3> <4DEFCD86.8040105@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <94EA793E98D54CE78E5AFAA858746CD4@G3> [Steve Willner] The main problem is you've mixed up "authorized" and "entitled." The information about a mixup is authorized if opponents happen to get it, but they are not entitled to that information and won't receive redress based on their having received it. [Nigel] Thank you. Yes I had. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 8 22:25:19 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:25:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DEFDAAF.20508@nhcc.net> On 6/7/2011 2:38 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Suppose I make an out-of-turn opening bid and gets my partner barred. > I chance 3NT, which makes. > All other tables have played in 1NT, making 3. > Would you adjust my score to 1NT+2? Not if you have an ordinary balanced hand. No villain would want to bar partner with that. But if you have, for example, A A AKQxxxx JTxx, then yes. Admittedly this example is probably inconsistent with the results Harald posits at other tables, but I think it's a good example of when L23 could be used. By the way, L23 is not new at all. What's new (as of 1997, when L72B1 was added) is having the principle apply to circumstances other than enforced passes. On 6/8/2011 9:01 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Consider someone accused in court of running a complicated > financial scam that depended on an obscure loophole in the tax code. > If he could prove to the court's satisfaction that there was no way > he could possibly have known of the critical loophole I don't understand this example at all. If the loophole is a real loophole, then the "scam" was legal all along, and the defendant should be acquitted. If the purported loophole doesn't exist, or the defendant's actions don't fit within it, then he's guilty as charged. The defendant's possible knowledge of the loophole seems irrelevant to me. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jun 8 22:31:11 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:31:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> [... Law 16 is] about "authorized and unauthorized >> information"[.] The subject[ of that] law[ is] not, >> at least not directly, related to the intention of the player >> involved. But L23 isn't about "potential damage", which is how Jerry >> would view it, but rather about "awareness of potential damage". >> That means that it is all about intention. It is meant to be applied >> only if there is some possibilty of "awareness". > > [Law 23] Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could > have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well > damage the nonoffending side, he shall require the auction and play to > continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the > Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side > has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. > * as, for example, by partner?s enforced pass. > > [Law 16B3] When a player has substantial reason to believe that an > opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could > have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director > when play ends**. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law > 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an > advantage for the offender. > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> We all agree that we must follow the law as written. But the law as >> written uses the phrase "could have been", which can be used in more >> than one sense, and we disagree over which we should read it as. > > Alright, I am almost sure that I can summarize what Eric is saying > here. Let's see if I get it right. > > He is saying, I think, that the director's test for "could have been > aware" includes a check for "was in fact aware," and if he is 99% sure > that the player was not aware (at the time of his irregularity that > this could well damage the nonoffending side), then that player should > be immune from L23 rectification. No, that is not quite right. What I am saying is that the director's test for "could have been aware" includes a check for "could not possibly have been aware". If the director "knows" this to be the case, he finds accordingly. Jerry is hung up on a point of personal philosophy. I am of the philosophical camp that believes that it is impossible to know anything -- even the existence of objective reality -- with absolute 100% certainty (perhaps I've read too much Philip Dick). So anything whatsoever I claim to "know" comes with "know" in quotes, and gets hedged. I suspect most TDs would apply Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" formulation. Whatever. But I offered a case in which everyone at the table was prepared to stipulate that the purported offender could not possibly have known the consequences of the rectification which would follow his irregularity, which should be close enough to "know" for any practical purpose, and Jerry maintained that this should not have any bearing on the automatic adverse ruling. > I still find that amazing, and I wonder if Eric would allow the player > he was about to rule against to try to convince him of his innocence > by any of the following: > > 1. Don't you remember, my last three contacts with you were to report > scoring errors? and only one was in my favor! > 2. Don't you remember, I just started bridge last week, how can I > know this bit about enforced pass? > 3. My friend John is your friend too. You trust John, and I think > John will vouch that I am categorically incapable of committing this > kind of infraction. He is over there, ask him! > 4. This is my first time playing bridge in my life. > 5. I always studiously avoid knowing the laws of bridge, and I > solemnly swear that I never heard of enforced pass before in my life. Try this one: "They told me it was my lead, so I led, and then RHO put down his cards, and then we called the director, who, after going off to consult with a bunch of other directors, ruled that declarer would become dummy and I could, if I wished, allow my partner to lead around to the hand that was now the dummy, and it turned out that because he could see declarer's hand, he found the lead to beat the contract. Then he ruled that *I* should get penalized for this, because if I had known everything that was going to happen, including all the details of the directors ruling, and all the implications of the opponents' auction as to what the dummy was going to look like, and because it is conceivable, although not true, that I might have known that I wasn't on lead, that I could have figured out that it would help me to ask if I was anyhow. I don't get it. I wasn't sure whose lead it was, and they told me it was mine, so I led. For this *they* get a favorable adjustment?" That might be enough for me. And, perhaps, for others. > Do you really want these kinds of dialogs at the table after an L23 > scenario comes up? Or perhaps this indemnity against L23 that you > want to give for certain people is only a gift you would give when you > thought it right on your own initiative, and you would never brook any > discussion or evidence about it. I would not like it either way, I > admit. > > But more to my main point, I would think by this reasoning, that a > L16B3 rectification could have the same defense---i.e., that "could > have" in L16B3 should include a check for "did." As I compare the > wording in these two laws, it seems that your way in L23 implies > something for potential Law 16B3 cases: You would also have to find > that there is at least a 1% chance that the player is capable of using > the hesitation, say, for his benefit. > > Furthermore, if as a player you call the director thinking it is a Law > 16B3 case, apparently you have to believe that there is at least a 1% > chance that the player intentionally used the hesitation to help his > side. The director call is therefore tantamount to a declaration that > you are sure the opponent is not clearly an honest player. > > And yet, I know that Eric does not think that, for we have this > exchange from January: > > [Jerry Fusselman, January 15, 2011, in "Alain's case revisited"] > > Please consider the noncompetitive auction > > 1S-2S > 3C-...3S > 4S. > > I.e., there was a slow 3S signoff after the 3C game try. It gets > raised to 4S anyway by a hand that some players would have taken > straight to game (instead of 3C), but no one would [have] tried for > a slam. > Please also assume that the slow signoff demonstrably shows extras. > In the play, it easily makes ten tricks, as it should in just about > all cases, and both sides play it well. > > [I want to consider the following four cases of what the player who > bid 4S might give as a justification:] > > 1. When I bid 3C, I forgot my distribution points, so I changed my > mind as to what my hand was worth even before LHO passed. > 2. I was always planning to go to game, and I was just using 3C to > try to confuse the opponents. We have not done this trick ever > before, but this is a big event, so I was trying new stuff. > 3. I meant to bid 3D, but I goofed, and since I was borderline anyway > for a game try, I just went to game ignoring my partner's response. > [4. I did not notice the hesitation at the time, though I do not deny > that it happened.] > > Please assume that each explanation is honest and that the director > somehow knows this. I am really curious as to what it would take for > a wise director to allow 4S, given that 3C was a game try and 3S was a > sign off. > > [Eric Landau's response, January 18, 2011] > > Impossible by stipulation. "Given that 3C was a game > try" (presumably so intended), we must conclude that the player was > trying for game. [This] mandates a finding of infraction. > > [Jerry, now] > > In these cases, I have stipulated that the director knows that Mr. 4S > did not use the hesitation to his advantage. The director knows that > the player did not do anything to his advantage. He knows that the > player magnificently self-aware and never lies. And yet Eric says a > finding of infraction is mandated nevertheless. He thinks that no > player is protected from any possible finding of an L16B3 infraction > just because the director personally happens to know wonderful things > about the player and that the player would never really do such a > thing as a true L16B3 infraction. > > I agree with Eric here, but not for his wish to give certain players > protection from any possible L23 infraction. I don't see why he won't > treat L23 in the same way as L16B3 in that knowing (or thinking he > knows) the character of the player is not critical information for > making a rectification. Let's look at L16B3 a bit more carefully than Jerry did. Yes, it uses the phrase "could have been suggested", but that is in a sentence directed not at the the TD, but at "a player". The evaluation of "could have been suggested" is left to the player, and it seems clear that if the player decides that the action in question could not possibly "have been suggested", he may decide not to summon the director. L23, which is directed at the TD, uses a similar phraseology, "could have been aware". To be consistent, we should interpret these two "could have been"s similarly, so if, indeed the player in L16B3 has the discretion *not* to "summon the director when play ends", why shouldn't the TD in L23, if he, similarly, decides that the player in question could not possibly "have been aware", have the same discretion not to "award[] an adjusted score"? To argue otherwise is to apply two different meanings of "could have been" to two different laws. I merely argue that the "could have been" in L23 should be interpreted as meaning the same thing as the "could have been" in L16B3. The TD in L16B3, however, has no such discretion. He "shall assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender". No "could have"s or "might have"s in that sentence. No mention of "awareness" in the immediate vicinity. The notion that my (or anyone else's) interpretation of L23, were it accepted, would have any bearing whatsoever on how the director might be expected to rule in L16B3 cases is just nonsense. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jun 8 22:32:52 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:32:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> <4DED809D.3070307@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4DEFDC74.6050108@nhcc.net> On 6/7/2011 10:58 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > The way to resolve this is to read the first two sentences of L54A1 > separately. That "declarer may spread his hand" is indeed a > rectification of an irregular OLOOT. But when L47E1 applies, the > declarer does not have this "may" option, so if he does spread his > hand, he has committed a separate irregularity. I like this a lot! > The separate > rectification for this irregularity -- declarer's spreading his hand > when he is not entitled to do so -- is specified in the remaining > portion of L54A1, which applies whether or not the first sentence does. So original declarer becomes dummy, which is fine. (L23 cleans up possibly deliberate infractions.) But there's still no time limit stated in L47E1, so when does the right to retract the (misinformed) LOOT expire? The last sentence of L47E2a is on possibility (in which case we also need 47E2b), but I can't infer that from the Laws as written. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jun 8 23:25:18 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:25:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <4DEFDC74.6050108@nhcc.net> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> <4DED809D.3070307@nhcc.net> <4DEFDC74.6050108@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000801cc2622$9172dfb0$b4589f10$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 6/7/2011 10:58 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > The way to resolve this is to read the first two sentences of L54A1 > > separately. That "declarer may spread his hand" is indeed a > > rectification of an irregular OLOOT. But when L47E1 applies, the > > declarer does not have this "may" option, so if he does spread his > > hand, he has committed a separate irregularity. > > I like this a lot! > > > The separate > > rectification for this irregularity -- declarer's spreading his hand > > when he is not entitled to do so -- is specified in the remaining > > portion of L54A1, which applies whether or not the first sentence does. > > So original declarer becomes dummy, which is fine. (L23 cleans up possibly > deliberate infractions.) But there's still no time limit stated in L47E1, so when > does the right to retract the (misinformed) LOOT expire? The last sentence > of L47E2a is on possibility (in which case we also need 47E2b), but I can't infer > that from the Laws as written. There is no need for any specific time limit in Law 47E1. It can (logically) no longer apply once either player on the declaring side begins to face cards. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 9 01:07:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:07:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DEF2BA6.8050501@skynet.be> Message-ID: Paul Keating, Australian Prime Minister 1991-1996: "Leadership is not about being nice. It's about being right and being strong." Robert Frick: >>>..... >>>It would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less >>>than what declarer expects. >>>..... Steve Willner (responding to Nigel): >>The main problem is you've mixed up "authorized" and >>"entitled." The information about a mixup is authorized >>if opponents happen to get it, but they are not entitled >>to that information >>..... Herman De Wael (responding to Harald): >I entirely agree with Harald. >While one is not entitled to know how Declarer interpreted >Dummy's call, one is entitled to know what it meant, even >if one is going to see the cards immediately after. When >Declarer bids 4S over Dummy's opening of 1NT, is it >important to know whether they are playing 15-17 (so >declarer probably has 10 points) or 13-15 (so declare has >12), even when the 15 points are clearly visible on the >table. >..... Richard Hills (responding to Robert, Steve and Herman): I entirely agree with Herman (and also with Steve Willner). One is entitled to ask a question if one does not know the range of the dummy's 1NT opening bid. If, however, one does know the range (perhaps by perusing the opponents' system card), then asking declarer about the range of dummy's 1NT before dummy appears exclusively to learn that declarer has forgotten the system, and declarer mistakenly believes "that dummy has more or less than what declarer expects" is in my opinion a non-entitled question. Law 20F2: " ... may request an explanation ... " Richard Hills: If an explanation has already been provided by the opponents' system card, then Law 20F2 no longer provides an entitlement to ask a question. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110608/0dd8bd36/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 9 01:38:40 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 00:38:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <425D4761DA824D1AB01B3FEDF6E2A4E0@G3> [Richard Hills] If an explanation has already been provided by the opponents' system card, then Law 20F2 no longer provides an entitlement to ask a question. [Nigel] I believed that players should be able to rely on the accuracy of opponents' system-cards. Richard, however has repeatedly insisted that, for law purposes, your agreement is not what is on the partnership system-cards but what is in the partnership heads. If Richard is right, then he must concede that you are entitled to ask a question about a call even if the "answer" is on the card. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 9 03:07:34 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:07:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <425D4761DA824D1AB01B3FEDF6E2A4E0@G3> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>..... >>If an explanation has already been provided by the >>opponents' system card, then Law 20F2 no longer provides >>an entitlement to ask a question. Nigel Guthrie: >I believed that players should be able to rely on the >accuracy of opponents' system-cards. Richard, however has >repeatedly insisted that, for law purposes, your >agreement is not what is on the partnership system-cards >but what is in the partnership heads. Richard Hills: Jerry Fusselman, however, has repeatedly (and justly) insisted that blmlers should be careful to correctly quote each other's views. In my opinion, if a Law 40C1 implicit understanding has replaced a previous Law 40A1(a) explicit understanding, then the partnership's system cards should immediately be updated accordingly. Law 40C1 itself says: "... implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system ..." Nigel Guthrie: >If Richard is right, then he must concede that you are >entitled to ask a question about a call even if the >"answer" is on the card. Richard Hills: No, that would be a non-entitled "Kaplan" question, much discussed on blml in the past. If the opponents' system card gives misinformation, then one is fully protected from that MI by Law 40B4: "A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110609/653f5a74/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 04:10:13 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:10:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 6, 2011, at 11:42 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >> I don't want a friend of the judge getting >> his parking ticket removed because the judge knows him to be a good >> guy. ?Parking tickets do not depend on intention. ?And in the game of >> American football, the referees do not need to know whether or not you >> intended to be off sides: ?If you were offsides, you get a five-yard >> penalty. ?And speeding violations do not require that the trooper >> prove that you intended to speed. ?The kind of justice I want is where >> the punishment is based objectively on what you did, not who you know, >> or what the guy in power thinks your intention was. > > Jerry misunderstands me. ?If you do the crime, you do the time, > regardless of intention. ?But ordinary justice typically involves > weighing the conflicting testimony of an accuser claiming that the > accused did the crime and an accused claiming that he did not do the > crime. ?"Justice", in that case, is for a judge and/or a jury to > listen to both sides, and their supporting witnesses, and then make a > determination as to which side's account was truthful. ?Jerry calls > this process "mind reading". ?I call it adjudication. Sorry, my point was that with parking tickets, we don't need to know or prove anything about intention. It makes the case a lot easier. Same with off-sides penalties, speeding violations, and L23 violations. In these cases, the judge does not need to know intention, so he wastes no time on such a tiresome and nebulous issue. For allegations of attempted murder and prearranged illegal methods of bridge communication, you do need testimony about intentions, but not for parking tickets and L23 violations. For such lesser issues, that is an improvement by streamlining the issues that matter, don't you think? > > If Jerry is right and BLML reaches a strong consensus that, title > notwithstanding, "awareness" has nothing whatsoever to do with the > applicability of L23, I shall certainly be forced to rethink my > interpretation. So far, it seems Eric's view has no BLML support at all, does it? I think we have Robert, Richard, Steve, and Nigel on my side so far, more or less. Or am I just thinking wishfully? Maybe someone will respond to this now. [...] Next comes the issue of why L23 is the way it is: > ?I speak only from knowing something of the history of > the ACBL, and from loose talk at the time, which may have been > nothing but rumor and speculation. ?Much was made in the wake of the > ACBL's legal difficulties of the need to revise the laws to prevent > future lawsuits based on findings of cheating. ?It is conceivable > that, at the same time, the folks running the ACBL had a massive > epiphany and decided that they wanted to abandon the way they had > always ruled the game and instead make the laws totally objective, > and that they then pressed the WBF to rewrite the laws solely to that > end, which had nothing whatsoever to do with those lawsuits or the > idea of preventing them in the future, but that would certainly seem > to be enough of a coincidence of timing to strain credibility. This seems like a bit of overstatement to me. The ACBL and WBF might have decided to inject more objectivity and fewer personal appraisals of intention, but they cannot eliminate them entirely. The example I keep giving is disciplinary hearings. That subject must be based, at least partially, on intention. There is no other way. But most other things, including either most or all rectifications, can be decided without ever addressing or speculating or guessing about intention. A question I really want to know the answer to is this: Can every rectification in the bridge laws be handled without a need to prove or speculate or guess about intention? I am afraid that my simple mind has been assuming the answer is yes, and many sentences I have written over the past year assume the answer is yes, but maybe I am overlooking one or several important matters. > >>>> I agree with Robert's statement: "I am very leary of my ability to >>>> determine the truth just by listening to people. I believe other >>>> people feel confident in that situation, but I suspect they are >>>> fools." >>> >>> I'm not suggesting heavy psychoanalysis. ?But, yes, I am willing to >>> go out on a limb and decide, in otherwise identical circumstances, to >>> accept a reasonable but self-serving statement as true if it comes >>> from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report >>> scoring errors in his favor but not if it comes from a player whose >>> last three contacts with me have been on the receiving end of >>> accusations of having committed an infraction deliberately to gain >>> advantage. >> >> Alright, you have covered about 0.1% of the cases. ?What about the >> others? ?You have not given anything like a general rule. >> >>> ?Does that make me a fool? >> >> Sorry, you asked; yes, I think so, at least in this one aspect. > > Then Jerry must think that all those judges and jurists, who make > determinations of witnesses' credibility -- what Jerry calls "mind > reading" -- every hour of every working day are fools as well. They are not fools if the issue is attempted murder, bribery, theft, etc., or if the issue is illegal prearranged methods of communication in bridge, but if the issue is parking tickets, or speeding or L23 or L16 violations, then yes, they may well be fools. I will give two subcases of the latter case. If they try to determine, in an L16B3 case such as the example I gave, whether or not the 4S bidder was, as he stated, "always going to bid 4S," regardless of his partner's hesitation, then they are fools to give that testimony any weight. It does not matter, at least for the rectification, whether he was always planning to bid game after his game try with the kind of hand I described. On the other hand, if they are trying to determine whether or not 3C was indeed a game try by a hand that had no interest in slam, then determination of credibility is not necessarily foolish. The director has to determine what methods they were using. > ?I do > not understand how Jerry can expect bridge to be adjudicated without > anyone ever making such "foolish" judgments. ?[...] The answer is simple: When the OS's intentions are not relevant, there is no need to make a judgement about them. > > When a judge is confronted by a witness who testifies he saw the > accused commit a crime, and an accused who testified that the witness > was mistaken, the person he saw wasn't him, the judge cannot know for > sure who is telling the truth. ?Does Jerry really think it better for > him not to try? Yes, certainly, in cases where it does not matter. Lots of less-important legal cases, such as possible parking and L23 violations, do not depend on intentions. It is better not to bother investigating intentions when it does not matter to whether or not a violation has taken place. Also, it is better to have most violations in your legal code be independent of intention so that you can streamline the process of determining whether a violation has taken place or not. >> I cannot figure out why you would rather I not call it mind reading. >> You are, after all, ascertaining what is in your customers' minds. >> Where else is it but their minds? ?I can hardly think of any more >> accurate description. ?Can you help me? > > No. ?Call it whatever you like. Thanks, Eric! I think I will call it mind reading. Thanks for your permission. >?But whatever you call it, directing > bridge games requires doing it. Yes, I have always said so, though it is far less important in our current laws than it was in the past. Fortunately, when intention does not affect whether a violation has taken place or not, we don't need any mind reading. That way, you get more objectivity, less favoritism, quicker decisions, fewer lawsuits. [...] > >> The catch is that I would want some good way of knowing whose >> appraisal was correct, other than just the word of my opponent. ?Can >> you arrange that? > > Interpreting the law in such a way as to give directors leeway in > their decisions implies giving directors the discretion to decide > when to take advantage of that leeway, and conversely. I object to this kind of discretion, because it leads to rank favoritism, statistical-but-unintended favoritism, and the appearance of favoritism. > ?I actually do > agree with Jerry that identical circumstances should produce > identical rulings regardless of the individuals involved. ?Where we > disagree is as to whether the determination of "identical > circumstances" must be confined strictly to actions that occurred at > the table. > > I'm entirely confident that were I to find myself directing the Blue > Ribbon finals, any L23 ruling I made would be identical to what Jerry > would have done, at least insofar as the ruling depends on the at- > issue interpretation of L23. I am little surprised at this. What happened to the case where Eric would lay 100-to-1 odds that he is incapable of that kind of cheating as a matter of his personal judgement? I would not bother estimating the odds, for it is relevant to me, but Eric needs to work on it to know whether or not a L23 rectification is possible. >?But Jerry's view would mandate that he > make exactly the same rulings at the Tuesday afternoon game at the > country club as he would in the Blue Ribbon finals, which I well > might not do. Actually, no. As I have said before, I am not discussing what does or should happen at clubs. I can repeat what I wrote to Eric and BLML on January 7: " I would rather leave clubs entirely out of the discussion: For my post[s], I was thinking only of events run in (using ACBL names) sectionals, regionals, and nationals. Almost anything can happen in clubs, and frequently does. Lets face it: Clubs run by their own rules. I want to hear if what I said is right in the domain of sectionals, regionals, and nationals, for I consider clubs a separate issue." >?So if he wants to test the efficacy of our relative > views, I suggest the following: ?Arrange to direct the Tuesday > afternoon game at the country club, or whatever his local equivalent > is, for several weeks. ?Any time there is a potential application of > L23 to be adjudicated, take care to give precisely the same ruling as > you would in the Blue Ribbon finals. ?Count the number of times this > requires you to rule in a manner which you believe is different from > the way you would rule under my interpretation of the same law. ?When > the count reaches four, if, at your next game, your club has as many > as half the number of regulars you started with, you win. > What an odd idea of what determines club membership! Funny thing is, I was thinking that my way would be more appreciated by most club visitors, for there would be less grousing about favoritism. Unless, what Eric means, is that he would show more favoritism towards the regulars than I would. Is that what Eric means? My way---is Eric telling me?---the regulars would leave due to their lost favoritism and go somewhere else where they could get their preferential treatment back? That must be it, because Eric's customers would surely really resent and feel personally affronted by any L23 rectifications Eric ever made against them, for Eric is always rendering a judgement on their motives. It sounds to me like Eric would keep the regulars happy by showing them more favoritism---accidentally and justifiably in his mind. And visitors would suffer a much higher share of L23 rectifications due to Eric's more limited knowledge of them. Well, okay, so be it, clubs can do what they want. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 04:59:52 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:59:52 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <00B5E10C-409C-47B7-83DC-CCA2740EDA35@starpower.net> References: <4DED7F4F.3050707@nhcc.net> <00B5E10C-409C-47B7-83DC-CCA2740EDA35@starpower.net> Message-ID: I am almost caught up with Eric's excellent Socratic contributions to this thread. It has already helped clarify my thinking. On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> Anyway, I don't consider ignorance of the law a valid defense from >> rectifications. > > I'm not sure why. ?"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a well-worn > cliche, cliche? What do you mean? > but what it means is that if you commit an offense you are > not forgiven by virtue of not having known that that particular > offense was against the law. ?That's not what we're talking about > here. I thought it was. If the potential offender of L23 can convince you to near 100% certainty that he had no idea that partner would barred and that that would help his side, I thought you were obligated to exempt him from any possibility of an L23 rectification. If that's right, ignorance of the enforced-pass law is indeed a defense. > ?Consider someone accused in court of running a complicated > financial scam that depended on an obscure loophole in the tax code. > If he could prove to the court's satisfaction that there was no way > he could possibly have known of the critical loophole on which his > alleged scheme depended, would you not expect the court to find him > not guilty? > Steve has already responded to this, and I do see his point, but let me add something different. We are not talking about attempted murder or nefariously bilking LOLs out of millions. Intention does matter when the stakes are that high. Such court cases usually take months. Showing intention is really difficult. Best to avoid the necessity whenever possible. Eric objects to me comparing bridge law 16 to bridge law 23; well I object to him comparing a simple L23 case to one of bilking millions. The scales of evil and the time you have to investigate each are totally different. An L23 case is more like a parking or speeding ticket. Just have your simple, objective procedure, and get it done. Potential L23 cases are more like offsides penalties in American football. Each can be handled quite well with a simple, objective criterion that allows a quick decision and avoids any nasty or potentially libelous determination of intention. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 05:39:12 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 22:39:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >> Alright, I am almost sure that I can summarize what Eric is saying >> here. ?Let's see if I get it right. >> >> He is saying, I think, that the director's test for "could have been >> aware" includes a check for "was in fact aware," and if he is 99% sure >> that the player was not aware (at the time of his irregularity that >> this could well damage the nonoffending side), then that player should >> be immune from L23 rectification. > > No, that is not quite right. ?What I am saying is that the director's > test for "could have been aware" includes a check for "could not > possibly have been aware". ?If the director "knows" this to be the > case, he finds accordingly. Mathematically, Eric's statement and mine seem equivalent, but I will accept Eric's version of what he is saying, of course. > > Jerry is hung up on a point of personal philosophy. ?I am of the > philosophical camp that believes that it is impossible to know > anything -- even the existence of objective reality -- with absolute > 100% certainty (perhaps I've read too much Philip Dick). I have never written anything contrary to that, as far as I know. Michael Polanyi is my favorite philosopher, for example. > So anything > whatsoever I claim to "know" comes with "know" in quotes, and gets > hedged. When you say you know something or have determined something to the extent you need to make a ruling, I am willing to have it mean whatever you say it means. You have never defined it, so I keep it vague to correspond to your lack of definition, for you. >?I suspect most TDs would apply Justice Stewart's "I know it > when I see it" formulation. ?Whatever. Ah, well, this is different. That quote is one of the ugliest ones in the history of the supreme court, for it glorifies the rule of men over the rule of law. > > But I offered a case in which everyone at the table was prepared to > stipulate that the purported offender could not possibly have known > the consequences of the rectification which would follow his > irregularity, which should be close enough to "know" for any > practical purpose, and Jerry maintained that this should not have any > bearing on the automatic adverse ruling. Yes, correct, and I got lots of agreement on BLML, including a rather clear statement by David Stevenson from 2004. > >> I still find that amazing, and I wonder if Eric would allow the player >> he was about to rule against to try to convince him of his innocence >> by any of the following: >> >> 1. ?Don't you remember, my last three contacts with you were to report >> scoring errors? and only one was in my favor! >> 2. ?Don't you remember, I just started bridge last week, how can I >> know this bit about enforced pass? >> 3. ?My friend John is your friend too. ?You trust John, and I think >> John will vouch that I am categorically incapable of committing this >> kind of infraction. ?He is over there, ask him! >> 4. ?This is my first time playing bridge in my life. >> 5. ?I always studiously avoid knowing the laws of bridge, and I >> solemnly swear that I never heard of enforced pass before in my life. > > Try this one: ?"They told me it was my lead, so I led, and then RHO > put down his cards, and then we called the director, who, after going > off to consult with a bunch of other directors, ruled that declarer > would become dummy and I could, if I wished, allow my partner to lead > around to the hand that was now the dummy, and it turned out that > because he could see declarer's hand, he found the lead to beat the > contract. ?Then he ruled that *I* should get penalized for this, > because if I had known everything that was going to happen, including > all the details of the directors ruling, and all the implications of > the opponents' auction as to what the dummy was going to look like, > and because it is conceivable, although not true, that I might have > known that I wasn't on lead, that I could have figured out that it > would help me to ask if I was anyhow. ?I don't get it. ?I wasn't sure > whose lead it was, and they told me it was mine, so I led. ?For this > *they* get a favorable adjustment?" I have already answered this twice. Once, in one sentence in reply to Steve in this thread on Monday, and once, at greater length, earlier today. I would never invoke L23 in this case. I gave two reasons, numbered. > > That might be enough for me. ?And, perhaps, for others. > >> Do you really want these kinds of dialogs at the table after an L23 >> scenario comes up? ?Or perhaps this indemnity against L23 that you >> want to give for certain people is only a gift you would give when you >> thought it right on your own initiative, and you would never brook any >> discussion or evidence about it. ?I would not like it either way, I >> admit. >> >> But more to my main point, I would think by this reasoning, that a >> L16B3 rectification could have the same defense---i.e., that "could >> have" in L16B3 should include a check for "did." ?As I compare the >> wording in these two laws, it seems that your way in L23 implies >> something for potential Law 16B3 cases: ?You would also have to find >> that there is at least a 1% chance that the player is capable of using >> the hesitation, say, for his benefit. >> >> Furthermore, if as a player you call the director thinking it is a Law >> 16B3 case, apparently you have to believe that there is at least a 1% >> chance that the player intentionally used the hesitation to help his >> side. ?The director call is therefore tantamount to a declaration that >> you are sure the opponent is not clearly an honest player. >> >> And yet, I know that Eric does not think that, for we have this >> exchange from January: >> >> [Jerry Fusselman, January 15, 2011, in "Alain's case revisited"] >> >> Please consider the noncompetitive auction >> >> 1S-2S >> 3C-...3S >> 4S. >> >> I.e., there was a slow 3S signoff after the 3C game try. ?It gets >> raised to 4S anyway by a hand that some players would have taken >> straight to game (instead of 3C), but no one would [have] tried for >> a slam. >> Please also assume that the slow signoff demonstrably shows extras. >> In the play, it easily makes ten tricks, as it should in just about >> all cases, and both sides play it well. >> >> [I want to consider the following four cases of what the player who >> bid 4S might give as a justification:] >> >> 1. ?When I bid 3C, I forgot my distribution points, so I changed my >> mind as to what my hand was worth even before LHO passed. >> 2. ?I was always planning to go to game, and I was just using 3C to >> try to confuse the opponents. ?We have not done this trick ever >> before, but this is a big event, so I was trying new stuff. >> 3. ?I meant to bid 3D, but I goofed, and since I was borderline anyway >> for a game try, I just went to game ignoring my partner's response. >> [4. ?I did not notice the hesitation at the time, though I do not deny >> that it happened.] >> >> Please assume that each explanation is honest and that the director >> somehow knows this. ?I am really curious as to what it would take for >> a wise director to allow 4S, given that 3C was a game try and 3S was a >> sign off. >> >> [Eric Landau's response, January 18, 2011] >> >> Impossible by stipulation. ?"Given that 3C was a game >> try" (presumably so intended), we must conclude that the player was >> trying for game. ?[This] mandates a finding of infraction. >> >> [Jerry, now] >> >> In these cases, I have stipulated that the director knows that Mr. 4S >> did not use the hesitation to his advantage. ?The director knows that >> the player did not do anything to his advantage. ?He knows that the >> player magnificently self-aware and never lies. ?And yet Eric says a >> finding of infraction is mandated nevertheless. ?He thinks that no >> player is protected from any possible finding of an L16B3 infraction >> just because the director personally happens to know wonderful things >> about the player and that the player would never really do such a >> thing as a true L16B3 infraction. >> >> I agree with Eric here, but not for his wish to give certain players >> protection from any possible L23 infraction. ?I don't see why he won't >> treat L23 in the same way as L16B3 in that knowing (or thinking he >> knows) the character of the player is not critical information for >> making a rectification. > > Let's look at L16B3 a bit more carefully than Jerry did. ?Yes, it > uses the phrase "could have been suggested", but that is in a > sentence directed not at the the TD, but at "a player". Eric's mind reading has failed him this time. I was more careful in my reading than Eric was in his mind reading. I did indeed note that the sentence in question referred to "a player." The proof is in the paragraph Eric snipped: "Furthermore, if as a player you call the director thinking it is a Law 16B3 case, apparently you have to believe that there is at least a 1% chance that the player intentionally used the hesitation to help his side. The director call is therefore tantamount to a declaration that you are sure the opponent is not clearly an honest player." I was indeed referring to "a player" calling the director. The less than 99% determination I mention is made by the player, not the director. >?The > evaluation of "could have been suggested" is left to the player, and > it seems clear that if the player decides that the action in question > could not possibly "have been suggested", he may decide not to summon > the director. ?L23, which is directed at the TD, uses a similar > phraseology, "could have been aware". ?To be consistent, we should > interpret these two "could have been"s similarly, so if, indeed the > player in L16B3 has the discretion *not* to "summon the director when > play ends", why shouldn't the TD in L23, if he, similarly, decides > that the player in question could not possibly "have been aware", > have the same discretion not to "award[] an adjusted score"? Oh drat! Eric has apparently changed the position that he stated in January about L16B3. I admired that position of his, but he apparently changed it to match the position he is now stating about L23. He is apparently retracting his statement of January 18: "Given that 3C was a game try" (presumably so intended), we must conclude that the player was trying for game. [This] mandates a finding of infraction." It would appear that Eric no longer mandates a finding of infraction when he trusts that the player is telling the truth that he says that "he was always going to bid 4S." Is that really what Eric has done? Now Eric wants to make a finding of intention even for L16B3 cases? That's very sad. Say it isn't so, Eric! > To > argue otherwise is to apply two different meanings of "could have > been" to two different laws. ?I merely argue that the "could have > been" in L23 should be interpreted as meaning the same thing as the > "could have been" in L16B3. Now Eric thinks it is valid to compare the two laws. Quite a switch! > > The TD in L16B3, however, has no such discretion. ?He "shall assign > an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has > resulted in an advantage for the offender". ?No "could have"s or > "might have"s in that sentence. ?No mention of "awareness" in the > immediate vicinity. ?The notion that my (or anyone else's) > interpretation of L23, were it accepted, would have any bearing > whatsoever on how the director might be expected to rule in L16B3 > cases is just nonsense. > Oh, now it is again not valid to compare. Well, maybe Eric or someone can clarify for me. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 9 06:05:32 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:05:32 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >..... >I think we have Robert, Richard, Steve, and Nigel on my >side so far, more or less. >..... Richard Hills: Yes, I support Jerry over Eric in their dispute about the interpretation of Law 23. No, my support of Jerry is an irrelevant nullity. Rather, the relevant Principle was described by -> Grattan Endicott, 12th June 2007: >>+=+ I read, too, that : >> >> "The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis >> without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons >> against an opposing view without considering reasons for >> it." >> >>With respect to the author of that sophistry, I respond >>quite simply that the fallacy lies in the suggestion that >>reasons, opinions, other than those of authority, have any >>importance. We are dealing with a game that has rules and >>also Directors empowered to determine their application in >>play, authorities with power to determine the principles >>and the interpretations of the rules that the Directors >>and appeals committees, like the players, are subject to. >> >>One can discuss preferences, desirability, but not the >>fact of a law when that fact is laid down by an authority >>empowered to say how it shall be construed. +=+ WBF LC (authority empowered to construe), 4 September 2009: "The committee recorded that Law 23 (and any other where the circumstances apply) is applicable both in the auction and the play. The WBF eliminated chapters and sections in its promulgation of the 2007 Laws and if a publisher has set the Laws in chapters and sections this does not affect the application of such laws." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110609/227e4a6c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 9 06:21:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:21:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, 12th June 2007: >..... >the fallacy lies in [Herman De Wael's] suggestion that >reasons, opinions, other than those of authority, have >any importance. >..... Ed Reppert, 5th June 2007, intentional fallacy: Syllogisms (or sillygisms, take your pick): Hercule Poirot is Belgian. Hercule Poirot is always right. Herman de Wael is Belgian. Therefore, Herman de Wael is always right. Alternatively, Herman de Wael is Hercule Poirot. Sorry, can't help it. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110609/ea003a3b/attachment-0001.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 9 08:30:41 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:30:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DF06891.8030402@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Paul Keating, Australian Prime Minister 1991-1996: > > "Leadership is not about being nice. It's about being right > and being strong." > > Robert Frick: > > >>>..... > >>>It would be useful to learn that dummy has more or less > >>>than what declarer expects. > >>>..... > > Steve Willner (responding to Nigel): > > >>The main problem is you've mixed up "authorized" and > >>"entitled." The information about a mixup is authorized > >>if opponents happen to get it, but they are not entitled > >>to that information > >>..... > > Herman De Wael (responding to Harald): > > >I entirely agree with Harald. > >While one is not entitled to know how Declarer interpreted > >Dummy's call, one is entitled to know what it meant, even > >if one is going to see the cards immediately after. When > >Declarer bids 4S over Dummy's opening of 1NT, is it > >important to know whether they are playing 15-17 (so > >declarer probably has 10 points) or 13-15 (so declare has > >12), even when the 15 points are clearly visible on the > >table. > >..... > > Richard Hills (responding to Robert, Steve and Herman): > > I entirely agree with Herman (and also with Steve Willner). > One is entitled to ask a question if one does not know the > range of the dummy's 1NT opening bid. > If, however, one does know the range (perhaps by perusing > the opponents' system card), then asking declarer about the > range of dummy's 1NT before dummy appears exclusively to > learn that declarer has forgotten the system, and declarer > mistakenly believes "that dummy has more or less than what > declarer expects" is in my opinion a non-entitled question. > > Law 20F2: > > " ... may request an explanation ... " > > Richard Hills: > > If an explanation has already been provided by the > opponents' system card, then Law 20F2 no longer provides an > entitlement to ask a question. > I agree entirely with Richard (will wonders ever cease?). Sadly, this is not explicitely stated in the laws, but it should be. Luckily, very few people realize that they have this way of finding out stuff they are not entitled to. Presumably, if a player tries this at a table, a wise opponent will answer "you've just read my SC, I don't need to answer that question any more". Hopefully, a TD, when asked to comment on that statement, will rule that the opponent is right. Herman. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3688 - Release Date: 06/08/11 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 9 08:32:59 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:32:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <425D4761DA824D1AB01B3FEDF6E2A4E0@G3> References: <425D4761DA824D1AB01B3FEDF6E2A4E0@G3> Message-ID: <4DF0691B.8000907@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > If an explanation has already been provided by the opponents' system card, > then Law 20F2 no longer provides an entitlement to ask a question. > > [Nigel] > I believed that players should be able to rely on the accuracy of opponents' > system-cards. Richard, however has repeatedly insisted that, for law > purposes, your agreement is not what is on the partnership system-cards but > what is in the partnership heads. If Richard is right, then he must concede > that you are entitled to ask a question about a call even if the "answer" is > on the card. > No, this does not follow at all. You are indeed allowed to rely on the accuracy of the SC. If the SC does not correctly reflect the system as the TD determines it to be, then you are entitled to rectification, even if then opponent states "had you just checked, I would have given you a correct explanation" -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 08:57:36 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 01:57:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <000101cc2218$c2390ce0$46ab26a0$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > >> From: Sven Pran >> >> Very simplified L23 is there to help the Director rule against a cheat >> without showing evidence of cheating. > > The utterance is cause of great sadness. > Why is that, Roger? From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 09:57:45 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:57:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DF06891.8030402@skynet.be> References: <4DF06891.8030402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003a01cc267a$eb068380$c1138a80$@online.no> > Herman De Wael [...] > > > Richard Hills: > > > > If an explanation has already been provided by the opponents' system > > card, then Law 20F2 no longer provides an entitlement to ask a > > question. > > > > I agree entirely with Richard (will wonders ever cease?). > > Sadly, this is not explicitely stated in the laws, but it should be. > Luckily, very few people realize that they have this way of finding out stuff > they are not entitled to. > Presumably, if a player tries this at a table, a wise opponent will answer > "you've just read my SC, I don't need to answer that question any more". > Hopefully, a TD, when asked to comment on that statement, will rule that > the opponent is right. > > Herman. [Sven Pran] Also when the explanation found on the SC appears incomplete? From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 10:30:56 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 03:30:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus detail Message-ID: Alright, now for something totally different. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Eric Landau wrote, to me and BLML: > Perhaps if you > have that little confidence in your ability to distinguish secretary > birds from novices you shouldn't be directing bridge games. I have no problem with this. Eric is being honest and helpful. It looks like Eric recommends that I should work on my ability and confidence in reading minds. I should test myself. But I want the test to be at least somewhat objective, so that I know whether I succeeded or failed. So I will try to test myself here. I hope I can do well, but I stand ready to be impressed by those who can do better. :) I pray that no one is insulted by my including or excluding his name, or by giving a bad probability estimate. I threw this together is a short time tonight, and I am sure that there are some big names I foolishly forgot. The numbers that I list below are my estimates of the probabilities that these bridge authorities would state a position on L23 closer to Eric's than mine, if they happened to speak out on the issue. This is what I was thinking when I wrote a few days ago that Eric would not get much support on his L23 position, even though he makes a habit of being right most of the time. I hope we will get a few data points over the next week or two for testing. These first two, we already have these established in the the thread, I think: Richard Hills approximately 0% David Stevenson, as of 2004, approximately 0% Here are twenty more---and these are merely my personal estimates: Jeff Easterson 95% Sven Pran 93% David Grabiner 90% David Burn 67% Matthias Berghaus 30% Kojak 10% Alain Gottcheiner 4% Hans van Staveren 2% Grattan Endicott 0.5% Herman De Wael 0.3% WBF LC 0.1% ACBL LC 0.03% Konrad Ciborowski 0.03% Adam Wildavsky 0.02% David Stevenson, in 2011, 0.01% ton 0.01% Robert Frick 0.01% Nigel Guthrie 0.01% Steve Willner 0.01% Rich Colker 0.001% I accept responsibility for any bad estimates I may have made. Sorry. But what I really want to know is this: Can anyone read minds better than I did? Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 9 10:33:12 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:33:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI=AI, BW Message-ID: <4DF08548.6050908@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, I'd like to draw your attention on the editorial for the June issue of /The Bridge World/, which is a well-argued complaint against the current "no awakening allowed" principle. Coincidentally, there happened an interesting case in this category last monday. AKTxx xxx Axx Tx partner you 1C p 1S Dbl 1NT 2NT 3C ? 1NT shows 1 or 2 spades ; Rdbl would show 3 (or a very strong hand) ; pass wouldn't deny 3. Because of the relative misfit in the blacks, you decided to bid only 2NT ; this is pairs after all. Now partner comes in with a strange (especially at pairs) 3C bid. What happened ? Well, if there hadn't been the double, 1NT would have been more ambiguous about spade length, and you would then use Roudi 2C (a kind of checkback). Within that context, 2NT would have been a puppet to 3C, with either a weak hand, or GF 5S / 4C. It seems like partner transposed this into this sequence, where Roudi isn't needed. Well, you're playing his system ... Because 3C can't be a suggestion for a final contract, it's forcing, so you bid 3NT, officially showing concentrated 5224, but what else can you do ? Too bad if it's too high, you'll pay for not knowing your system. You're in luck, as he passes, and 3NT makes facing partner's good 13 count. Of course, this is no more than an average, as many play the same contract (doubled once). What's the problem, you may ask ? Well, partner alerted your 2NT bid, of course ! Now you've got UI, that you're not allowed to use. Many of us woudl argue that the 3C bid is so strange that UI is matched by AI that a wheel has gone loose, so you're allowed to bid on that basis. The editorial in /The Bridge World/ states that, in the US at least, this argument is never valid and you would be penalized for using UI. What's your opinion about : a) this general statement b) the present case ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110609/ff0f8c52/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 9 10:57:05 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:57:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01cc267a$eb068380$c1138a80$@online.no> References: <4DF06891.8030402@skynet.be> <003a01cc267a$eb068380$c1138a80$@online.no> Message-ID: <4DF08AE1.60607@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> Herman De Wael > [...] >> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> If an explanation has already been provided by the opponents' system >>> card, then Law 20F2 no longer provides an entitlement to ask a >>> question. >>> >> >> I agree entirely with Richard (will wonders ever cease?). >> >> Sadly, this is not explicitely stated in the laws, but it should be. >> Luckily, very few people realize that they have this way of finding out > stuff >> they are not entitled to. >> Presumably, if a player tries this at a table, a wise opponent will answer >> "you've just read my SC, I don't need to answer that question any more". >> Hopefully, a TD, when asked to comment on that statement, will rule that >> the opponent is right. >> >> Herman. > > [Sven Pran] Also when the explanation found on the SC appears incomplete? > No indeed, you are correct. The above was only intended for the case where the player tries to get the same answer from the player that he has already read on the SC (or rather, hopes to get a different answer). In the case where the information on the SC is insufficient, supplementary questions are of course allowed, and should be answered. And if the supplementary answer reveals that the player was not up to speed with his own SC, then so be it - he should have filled out his SC more completely. I knew this all along, Sven, and did not want to cloud the issue in my previous post. But you are absolutely correct in noting it. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Thu Jun 9 10:57:15 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:57:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] UI=AI, BW In-Reply-To: <4DF08548.6050908@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DF08548.6050908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1303290909.210459.1307609835016.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to draw your attention on the editorial for the June issue of > /The Bridge World/, which is a well-argued complaint against the current > "no awakening allowed" principle. > > Coincidentally, there happened an interesting case in this category last > monday. > > AKTxx > xxx > Axx > Tx > > partner you > > 1C p 1S Dbl > 1NT 2NT > 3C ? > > 1NT shows 1 or 2 spades ; Rdbl would show 3 (or a very strong hand) ; > pass wouldn't deny 3. > Because of the relative misfit in the blacks, you decided to bid only > 2NT ; this is pairs after all. > > Now partner comes in with a strange (especially at pairs) 3C bid. What > happened ? > Well, if there hadn't been the double, 1NT would have been more > ambiguous about spade length, and you would then use Roudi 2C (a kind > of checkback). Within that context, 2NT would have been a puppet to 3C, > with either a weak hand, or GF 5S / 4C. > It seems like partner transposed this into this sequence, where Roudi > isn't needed. Well, you're playing his system ... > > Because 3C can't be a suggestion for a final contract, it's forcing, so > you bid 3NT, officially showing concentrated 5224, but what else can you > do ? > Too bad if it's too high, you'll pay for not knowing your system. > > You're in luck, as he passes, and 3NT makes facing partner's good 13 > count. Of course, this is no more than an average, as many play the same > contract (doubled once). > > What's the problem, you may ask ? Well, partner alerted your 2NT bid, of > course ! > Now you've got UI, that you're not allowed to use. > Many of us woudl argue that the 3C bid is so strange that UI is matched > by AI that a wheel has gone loose, so you're allowed to bid on that basis. > > The editorial in /The Bridge World/ states that, in the US at least, > this argument is never valid and you would be penalized for using UI. > > What's your opinion about : > > a) this general statement > b) the present case ? I think that a player should be allowed to "wake up" if there so much AI that it is no longer "likely" that absent the UI he would not have "woken up". I have no opinion on Alain's example case because I do not fully understand the auction and the implications. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 9 10:59:29 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:59:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus detail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DF08B71.7030009@skynet.be> this part amused me the most: Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > Grattan Endicott 0.5% > Herman De Wael 0.3% > WBF LC 0.1% Sorry, Grattan! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Jun 9 11:03:37 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:03:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI=AI, BW In-Reply-To: <4DF08548.6050908@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DF08548.6050908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DF08C69.4070003@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hi all, > [snip] > Now you've got UI, that you're not allowed to use. > Many of us woudl argue that the 3C bid is so strange that UI is matched > by AI that a wheel has gone loose, so you're allowed to bid on that basis. > > The editorial in /The Bridge World/ states that, in the US at least, > this argument is never valid and you would be penalized for using UI. > > What's your opinion about : > > a) this general statement the general statement is false > b) the present case ? > you present a very potent case, but I don't know if I'll accept it in the room. Which translates into: the general statement is false, but in practice there may well be so few examples of it being false that it might just as well be considered to be true. And if it is stated in that spirit, then I agree with it. > > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Jun 9 11:23:09 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:23:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus detail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01d801cc2686$d96cc880$8c465980$@nl> I do not have a lot of time these days, and the discussions are going very wild, but since my name is mentioned I took a couple of minutes. To start with law 23 always applies after an infraction. If the director can envision that a player(not necessarily the one that did it) could have done the infraction on purpose with genuine hope to gain points, he should give an adjusted score. It makes no difference whether the player that infracted could have been aware, and certainly not whether he was aware. However, in the present case, if I still understand it, it is a question of a player asking "my lead?" , getting a yes answer and leading out of turn. That changes things, since now there are at least two infractions: 1) The Yes answer 2) The lead out of turn I will only in very strange circumstances take the question as an infraction. In my opinion, given the order of these two infractions, and the causal connection between them, it would make the chance that I would rule Law 23 against the opening leader as being roughly equivalent to that of a lump of solid H2O in the unpleasant alternative to heaven. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Fusselman Sent: donderdag 9 juni 2011 10:31 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Principles versus detail Alright, now for something totally different. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Eric Landau wrote, to me and BLML: > Perhaps if you > have that little confidence in your ability to distinguish secretary > birds from novices you shouldn't be directing bridge games. I have no problem with this. Eric is being honest and helpful. It looks like Eric recommends that I should work on my ability and confidence in reading minds. I should test myself. But I want the test to be at least somewhat objective, so that I know whether I succeeded or failed. So I will try to test myself here. I hope I can do well, but I stand ready to be impressed by those who can do better. :) I pray that no one is insulted by my including or excluding his name, or by giving a bad probability estimate. I threw this together is a short time tonight, and I am sure that there are some big names I foolishly forgot. The numbers that I list below are my estimates of the probabilities that these bridge authorities would state a position on L23 closer to Eric's than mine, if they happened to speak out on the issue. This is what I was thinking when I wrote a few days ago that Eric would not get much support on his L23 position, even though he makes a habit of being right most of the time. I hope we will get a few data points over the next week or two for testing. These first two, we already have these established in the the thread, I think: Richard Hills approximately 0% David Stevenson, as of 2004, approximately 0% Here are twenty more---and these are merely my personal estimates: Jeff Easterson 95% Sven Pran 93% David Grabiner 90% David Burn 67% Matthias Berghaus 30% Kojak 10% Alain Gottcheiner 4% Hans van Staveren 2% Grattan Endicott 0.5% Herman De Wael 0.3% WBF LC 0.1% ACBL LC 0.03% Konrad Ciborowski 0.03% Adam Wildavsky 0.02% David Stevenson, in 2011, 0.01% ton 0.01% Robert Frick 0.01% Nigel Guthrie 0.01% Steve Willner 0.01% Rich Colker 0.001% I accept responsibility for any bad estimates I may have made. Sorry. But what I really want to know is this: Can anyone read minds better than I did? Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Jun 9 11:36:48 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:36:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus detail In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DF09430.5090803@aol.com> I haven't been following this thread too closely. My time (and patience?) is limited and many of the postings are very (too?) long, especially many of Jerry's. Without closer analysis and rereading I'd say that Jerry's estimate that I should agree with Eric (95%) is too high. In the parts of the discussion I did read my feeling was closer to Jerry's but it would depend on the individual case and what sort of supplementary info (and how certain I was about its provenance) I had. In most cases, in my experience, one has no such supplementary info or it is of doubtful value. Generally I suspect that I should follow Jerry's argument in the vast majority of cases but can conceive of some in which I'd decide as Eric does. Ciao, JE Am 09.06.2011 10:30, schrieb Jerry Fusselman: > Alright, now for something totally different. > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Eric Landau wrote, to me and BLML: > >> Perhaps if you >> have that little confidence in your ability to distinguish secretary >> birds from novices you shouldn't be directing bridge games. > I have no problem with this. Eric is being honest and helpful. It > looks like Eric recommends that I should work on my ability and > confidence in reading minds. I should test myself. But I want the > test to be at least somewhat objective, so that I know whether I > succeeded or failed. > > So I will try to test myself here. I hope I can do well, but I stand > ready to be impressed by those who can do better. :) > > I pray that no one is insulted by my including or excluding his name, > or by giving a bad probability estimate. I threw this together is a > short time tonight, and I am sure that there are some big names I > foolishly forgot. > > The numbers that I list below are my estimates of the probabilities > that these bridge authorities would state a position on L23 closer to > Eric's than mine, if they happened to speak out on the issue. This is > what I was thinking when I wrote a few days ago that Eric would not > get much support on his L23 position, even though he makes a habit of > being right most of the time. I hope we will get a few data points > over the next week or two for testing. > > These first two, we already have these established in the the thread, I think: > > Richard Hills approximately 0% > David Stevenson, as of 2004, approximately 0% > > Here are twenty more---and these are merely my personal estimates: > > Jeff Easterson 95% > Sven Pran 93% > David Grabiner 90% > David Burn 67% > Matthias Berghaus 30% > Kojak 10% > Alain Gottcheiner 4% > Hans van Staveren 2% > Grattan Endicott 0.5% > Herman De Wael 0.3% > WBF LC 0.1% > ACBL LC 0.03% > Konrad Ciborowski 0.03% > Adam Wildavsky 0.02% > David Stevenson, in 2011, 0.01% > ton 0.01% > Robert Frick 0.01% > Nigel Guthrie 0.01% > Steve Willner 0.01% > Rich Colker 0.001% > > I accept responsibility for any bad estimates I may have made. Sorry. > But what I really want to know is this: Can anyone read minds better > than I did? > > Jerry Fusselman > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 9 12:55:47 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:55:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I did not misrepresent Richard's oft-stated view that, for law purposes, your agreement is not what is on the partnership system-cards but what is in the partnership heads. But even if you are entitled to rely on the accuracy card (as I feel you are) , you must still be entitled to ask because although the card may embody the truth it is not usually the *whole* truth. An experienced partnership will find it nigh impossible to condense the nuances of all their understandings onto a small piece of cardboard. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 13:40:26 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:40:26 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000201cc269a$06f859a0$14e90ce0$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > I did not misrepresent Richard's oft-stated view that, for law purposes, your > agreement is not what is on the partnership system-cards but what is in the > partnership heads. But even if you are entitled to rely on the accuracy card > (as I feel you are) , you must still be entitled to ask because although the card > may embody the truth it is not usually the *whole* truth. > An experienced partnership will find it nigh impossible to condense the > nuances of all their understandings onto a small piece of cardboard. [Sven Pran] I remember a similar question was raised some years ago in Norway, and the answer was that a player can request verbal answers to his questions even if the declaration on the SC is both complete and accurate. However, we accept that a player can cast doubt about his own memory and recommend that the asker consult the SC instead of relying 100% on the verbal answer given. In such cases we will not rule MI if the SC is correct and the memory had failed the player. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jun 9 14:53:25 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:53:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201cc269a$06f859a0$14e90ce0$@online.no> References: <000201cc269a$06f859a0$14e90ce0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4DF0C245.2080505@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/06/2011 13:40, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> Nigel Guthrie >> I did not misrepresent Richard's oft-stated view that, for law purposes, > your >> agreement is not what is on the partnership system-cards but what is in > the >> partnership heads. But even if you are entitled to rely on the accuracy > card >> (as I feel you are) , you must still be entitled to ask because although > the card >> may embody the truth it is not usually the *whole* truth. >> An experienced partnership will find it nigh impossible to condense the >> nuances of all their understandings onto a small piece of cardboard. > [Sven Pran] I remember a similar question was raised some years ago in > Norway, and the answer was that a player can request verbal answers to his > questions even if the declaration on the SC is both complete and accurate. > However, we accept that a player can cast doubt about his own memory and > recommend that the asker consult the SC instead of relying 100% on the > verbal answer given. In such cases we will not rule MI if the SC is correct > and the memory had failed the player. > AG : agree about the MI considerations, but doesn't it create a huge piece of UI ? From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 9 15:14:30 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:14:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <000801cc2622$9172dfb0$b4589f10$@online.no> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> <4DED809D.3070307@nhcc.net> <4DEFDC74.6050108@nhcc.net> <000801cc2622$9172dfb0$b4589f10$@online.no> Message-ID: <4DF0C736.4040802@nhcc.net> On 6/8/2011 5:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > There is no need for any specific time limit in Law 47E1. It can (logically) > no longer apply once either player on the declaring side begins to face > cards. Why's that? Eric's suggestion, if you recall, was that the correct opponent can still lead even after the new dummy (original declarer) hand is exposed. The logical time limit seems to me to be when leader's partner plays to the first trick, but I don't find that or any other limit in the Laws. We can argue forever about which of our views is more logical, but the Laws ought to say. Grattan: are you taking notes? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 9 15:37:26 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:37:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > The way a mathematician might state it is something like this: If the > information that the infractor had at the time of his infraction makes > the expected value of his result higher with the infraction and > automatic rectification than he would have gotten with no infraction, > then we hit him with L23, whether or not we think he did it > intentionally or knowingly. But that is precisely my position, and appears to contradict what Jerry has been arguing up to this point. My view requires that the information that the infractor had at the time of his infraction is sufficient for him to determine that the expected value of his result will be improved by the infraction. Jerry's view, as I've understood it, is that if the information arising strictly from the action at the table is sufficient to give the infraction a positive expectation, we are to presume that the player had whatever other information he might have needed at the time to determine that positive expectation. Mine is that whether or not he could have had whatever other information he would have needed to make that determination is simply one more requirement of the law to be determined by the director, based on the available evidence, and if the director decides that that is not a possibility, he does not apply L23. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Jun 9 16:00:12 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 16:00:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <4DF0C736.4040802@nhcc.net> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> <4DE7ED57.60607@nhcc.net> <000601cc216e$991a5260$cb4ef720$@no> <4DE84629.60603@nhcc.net> <000c01cc21a3$e40d1430$ac273c90$@no> <4DED809D.3070307@nhcc.net> <4DEFDC74.6050108@nhcc.net> <000801cc2622$9172dfb0$b4589f10$@online.no> <4DF0C736.4040802@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <000b01cc26ad$8d2ee440$a78cacc0$@online.no> > Steve Willner > On 6/8/2011 5:25 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > There is no need for any specific time limit in Law 47E1. It can > > (logically) no longer apply once either player on the declaring side > > begins to face cards. > > Why's that? Eric's suggestion, if you recall, was that the correct opponent can > still lead even after the new dummy (original declarer) hand is exposed. [Sven Pran] No, I don't recall, and I certainly do not agree that the correct opponent can lead at his own decision after attention is called to the incorrect opening lead. Law 47E1 says that the (incorrect) leader _may_ retract his lead and that this option cannot be overruled by declarer's option to accept an incorrect lead. But the correct opponent may certainly not lead in this situation unless the incorrect leader indeed does retract his lead (as allowed in Law 47E1). Now, there is an interesting question that I cannot remember having been raised: What is the consequence if the incorrect leader decides to not retract his lead? The way I understand the laws if the incorrect leader who has been misinformed selects to let his incorrect lead stand is that declarer now must accept this lead with himself as declarer, i.e. the procedure specified in Law 54B shall be followed. > The logical time limit seems to me to be when leader's partner plays to the > first trick, but I don't find that or any other limit in the Laws. > > We can argue forever about which of our views is more logical, but the Laws > ought to say. Grattan: are you taking notes? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 9 16:13:24 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> <6709BEC9-CD94-43A9-A0FD-58D1675E2F3D@starpower.net> <6C32656F-4D2F-4D58-ABC7-B78823EA27B0@starpower.net> <3C3E4D46-1E54-4338-BBC1-9DBE2A61E149@starpower.net> Message-ID: I confess I am at a loss to respond to this, but I'll try. Either Jerry hasn't been reading what I've been writing, or is willfully misundertanding it. On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > As promised yesterday, I will now address the issue that Eric called > "direct libel." I will try to handle the issue better this time. > > Perhaps I should just quote this from Richard Hills: "A > canonical example of a Law 23 infraction is East-West > bidding constructively in diamonds and North-South using > the favourable vulnerability to bid preemptively in > spades. East bids 6D, South saves in 6S, West bids 7D and > South doubles out-of-turn holding the ace of diamonds. > North's enforced Pass means that North does not take the > phantom sacrifice in 7S. Whether North-South are little > old ladies who are always smiling, or whether North- > South are unsmiling joyless experts who like winning > ugly, in both cases the Director applies Law 23." > > I entirely agree with this. I will use this example where South > doubles out of turn and gets his predictably great result. Nothing I have said would contradict this. > Eric would apparently let the little old ladies who are always smiling > off if he knows (or almost sure knows) their character to be > excellent. Also, he would let them off if he knew that they were > beginners. There are no circumstances in this case under which I would "let them off". Even the rawest novice little old lady must know that by doubling she is telling partner that she expects the contract to go down, which would prevent her partner from saving, even if she could not possibly have known that the law would do that for her. > And he says that he would let them off if the self-serving > statement "comes > from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report > scoring errors in [her] favor."---June 6. Hardly objective, I think, > but that is what he said. Jerry has gotten hung up on this, and, similarly, on my statement about "100 to 1 odds". I would suggest going back and reading those remarks in context. They were offered, external to the discussion of L23, to support my general argument that directors are called upon to judge the credibility of their players regularly and routinely, and manage to do so in whatever manner makes them comfortable, against Jerry's argument that doing so consitutes impossible and thus inherently unfair "mind reading" that directors shouldn't even attempt. They were certainly not in any way meant to offer a specific procedure for L23 cases. Perhaps I'm crazy, but on reviewing what I wrote I have a hard time seeing how it could have been that badly misread. > Maybe I can do this no more clearly than Richard, but I will try to > give it my own approach. > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> Since reading minds in this way cannot really be done with >>> any reliability, it is best not to try. My interpretation of L23 >>> is that directors are not asked to try. They are not asked to >>> determine whether he was aware, only if he could have been >>> aware. To do that, they have a doable task: Was the >>> irregularity likely to help his side given the information >>> that was available at the time? > [...] >>> That's the question I want Eric to answer if he comes to my table >>> to make a ruling. I want his ruling to be the same every time the >>> objective facts (calls, plays, UI, MI, irregularity) are the same, >>> regardless how much he likes the players at the table. >> >> I claim to be neither perfectly objective nor immune from >> subconscious influences, but resent the implication that I rule >> differently depending on how much I "like" the players involved, at >> least any more than anyone else does. >> >> Those who would give more >> favorable rulings to their friends, deliberately or otherwise, will >> find a way to do so without having to carefully parse the relevant >> laws in advance. > > I am not concerned very much with these people. I am more concerned > with those who rule in favor of their friends when they think it is > justified because they know them so well. This has nothing to do with "their friends". It has only to do with a willingness to make the kinds of judgments that the laws require directors and committees to make all the time. >>> Do you see the bias Eric is introducing into his rulings by >>> favoring "innocent" players? He is giving better rulings to >>> players he likes. >> >> That last sentence is a direct libel. I shall assume Jerry did not >> mean what he wrote. > > Please permit me to explain what I meant. When any director's > personal knowledge about a player is central to his L23 ruling, as it > is for Eric, the end result will look exactly like favoritism. It > will be indistinguishable from favoritism, even if the director is as > wonderfully fair as Eric. This is a theorem I intend to prove now: The basis for the libel is in how Jerry uses the word "personal". Of course any director's "knowledge" about a player is central to his L23 ruling, or any other ruling for which rectification isn't pre- determined. The alternative would be for directors to avoid any knowledge of the players involved in adjudications, which would require not seeing them, not listening to them, and not talking to them, three-monkeys style, making decisions based on the hand, auction and play records alone with absolutely no regard to anything the players involved might have to offer. I expect Jerry would prefer this -- no more "mind reading", ever! -- but it is not what the laws require of us. > Let Mr. X refer to any director who rules L23 like Eric recommends. > > Mr. X uses his personal knowledge as to the likelihood that South > knows about the enforced-pass rule plus his likelihood that South > would ever cheat in this way even if he did know. If Mr. X thinks > that South is a totally honest person who assures Mr. X that nothing > evil has happened, then Eric would have Mr. X rule that no L23 > rectification is warranted. > > The Souths that Mr. X thinks would not do this are highly correlated > with the Souths that Mr. X likes. Therefore, the players that Mr. X > likes are likely to be immune to rectifications by Mr. X, and the > players that Mr. X dislikes are likely to be subject to > rectifications. > > Thus, the players that Mr. X likes will fare better under Mr. X's > rulings, and this looks exactly like ugly, nasty favoritism, even > though it was totally unintentional. > > This is what I was trying to say. Did I do better this time? Not even a little bit better. Please feel free to try again. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jun 9 20:28:45 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:28:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> Message-ID: <060F5F0F-CAF6-4F78-B1B4-89A9BCEEAA8E@starpower.net> Before the back and forth between Jerry and me degenerates into one of those "Herm-interminable" threads, or, worse yet, sinks to the level of personal invective, let me see if I can clarify what is really at issue between us, in the hope of getting us off to a fresh start that might yet lead to some resolution of the real differences in our viewpoints. To begin with, the point at issue is not specifically about L23, or L16B3, or any other law in particular. It is about how, in interpreting TFLB, we treat such phrases as "could have been aware", "could have known", "could have been suggested", etc. in general. Such phraseology appears in at least half a dozen separate laws, and, if nothing else, we should agree that they are to be interpreted in a manner that is consistent among them. On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:39 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> Alright, I am almost sure that I can summarize what Eric is saying >>> here. Let's see if I get it right. >>> >>> He is saying, I think, that the director's test for "could have been >>> aware" includes a check for "was in fact aware," and if he is 99% >>> sure >>> that the player was not aware (at the time of his irregularity that >>> this could well damage the nonoffending side), then that player >>> should >>> be immune from L23 rectification. >> >> No, that is not quite right. What I am saying is that the director's >> test for "could have been aware" includes a check for "could not >> possibly have been aware". If the director "knows" this to be the >> case, he finds accordingly. > > Mathematically, Eric's statement and mine seem equivalent, but I will > accept Eric's version of what he is saying, of course. Let's start with the simple mathematical proposition "(A and B) implies C". We consider only those real-world examples in which the implication is not immediately obvious, but can be established as true, given some mental effort, from nothing more than the rules of logic and universal common knowledge. Mr. X, at some particular time in question, is known not to have been aware of C. What does it mean to say that he "could have been aware" of C at the time? This depends on which sense of the conditional "could have" we choose to apply. In one sense, it could mean (a) that Mr. X was aware of A and B, thus he could have been aware of C had he taken the time and mental effort required to figure it out. Alternatively, it could mean (b) that Mr. X, or anyone else, regardless of their state of knowledge as to A and B, could have been aware of C had they taken the time and trouble to educate themselves as to A and B, and subsequently figured out C, as in (a). Using (a), we can say that Mr. X "could not possibly have been aware of C" to mean that Mr. X could not possibly have known A or B; so that no amount of thought, logic or deduction would have sufficed to make him aware of C. Using (b), however, the statement that Mr. X "could not possibly have been aware of C" is a logical impossibility given that our original proposition is true. I argue for meaning (a) based on history, previously recounted, a sense of continuity in how the game is adjudicated even as the laws themselves change, a firm view that the laws must be interpreted in such a way that they can be both practically and consistently applied throughout the universe of organized duplicate contract bridge, from the lowest to the highest levels, and, in the case of L23 in particular, the notion that the words the authors of that law chose for its title were not selected entirely at random. Jerry argues for meaning (b) based on the proposition that the laws should be applied as uniformly as possible, so that it is right and proper to resolve any ambiguities of interpretation we may encounter in such a way as to minimize the need, or opportunity, for individual TDs and other officials to make subjective judgments, or "read minds", because that would allow them to exercise personal bias in favor of their friends, or, even when they do no such thing, give rise to unwarrented accusations of same, both of which are greatly to be avoided. The weakness in my position is that it does indeed open up the door to the possibility of one's biasing one's rulings, consciously or otherwise, in favor of one's friends. The weakness in Jerry's position is that it requires us to bring down upon the heads of little-old-lady novices the same full weight and majesty of the law as we would upon the heads of what used to be called "known cheaters", who in today's litigious atmosphere must be referred to as "persons widely suspected of purportedly improper actions". Which of these is better avoided for the long-term good of the game is clearly a legitimate subject for debate in this forum. But we need to wipe some mud off the table. Jerry has made statements which appear to suggest that I favor (a) because I *want* to be able to give better rulings to people I like than to people I don't. I would appreciate a definitive assurance from him that he does not actually believe this. And I may have made statements which appear to suggest that Jerry favors (b) because he does not want, out of laziness or insecurity, to step up to the more difficult of the decision-making obligations the job of a professional TD demands of him. I hereby definitively declare that I do not actually believe this. I will be out of touch with BLML for about a week and a half beginning sometime tomorrow, but will return hoping we can take up this discussion anew using this attempted recapitulation as a starting point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 20:31:12 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:31:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus detail Message-ID: [Jeff Easterson:] My time (and patience?) is limited and many of the postings are very (too?) long, especially many of Jerry's. Why not say it like this?: "My patience is limited and many of the postings are too long, especially many of Jerry's." Well, the irony is that I got an email offline asking me for a summary, so I am going to test Jeff's patience even more by writing out a summary of the issue here. We are talking about a garden-variety L23 case, where only one irregularity has occurred. We are not talking about the side issue that Robert Frick brought up, where a misstatement occurred first, leading the second irregularity that some want to apply L23 to, but not me. (I basically agree with what Hans van Staveren wrote eight hours ago on Robert Frick's specific issue, but Eric might too.) So, we have an ordinary L23 case, and Eric and I have been disagreeing about what the director needs to consider. [Eric's way, direct quote:] If you "know" that the infraction was committed unintentionally and innocently, you should avoid reading L23 in such a way as to be forced to invoke it anyhow. Of course, you can never absolutely know for sure, so make that "be willing to lay 100-to-1 odds", or whatever definition of "know" you're comfortable with. [Jerry's way, from a 2004 David Stevenson post, as provided by Richard Hills:] "Maybe the player did not revoke intentionally, but Law 72B1 [now the 2007 Law 23] means that the TD does not have to make such a determination. If there is a situation where a cheat could benefit then a TD can invoke Law 72B1 [now the 2007 Law 23] without any determination as to whether this player has acted unintentionally or unethically." Please note the use "intention" and "unintentionally" in each way. Quite a difference. Eric's way, stated in his own words, crucially depends on a finding (admittedly not 100% perfect) of intention. My way, intention does not matter at all for the potential L23 rectification, and there is no reason to even consider it for that. (You might consider intention for disciplinary reasons, but not for the rectification.) Anyway, this is the issue my predictions from ten hours ago refers to. Eric, I am sure you will feel free to clarify or fix, if you read this. I have not yet had a chance to digest what you wrote this morning, but I look forward to it. Jerry Fusselman From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jun 9 20:50:26 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:50:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI=AI, BW In-Reply-To: <4DF08548.6050908@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DF08548.6050908@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DF115F2.2090406@nhcc.net> On 6/9/2011 4:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Within that context, 2NT would have been a puppet to 3C, with either a > weak hand, or GF 5S / 4C. > It seems like partner transposed this into this sequence, where Roudi > isn't needed. Absent the alert, if I understand the system, I'd expect partner to have something like 1336 or 2236 or so, where he was willing to play 1NT as a matchpoint gamble but thinks 3C is safer than 2NT. So I'd pass 3C with little thought. Behind screens, I could guess that partner might think the system is the same as without the double, but it would be a guess, not a certainty as it is with the UI. > What's your opinion about : > a) this general statement I'm a supporter of the "Rubens School," where _correct_ alerts and explanations would be AI, but this isn't an example. The legal principle is that you can take the action suggested by UI if there's no LA. That seems reasonable to me. If AI tells you for sure that partner is on the wrong track, then fine, take your best shot. But if AI only suggests it as one possibility, and UI confirms it, then no. Or more precisely, if AI admits several reasons for partner's action, there will most likely be several LAs to choose from, and UI may restrict your choice. Nothing new here. > b) the present case ? The alert in the example was incorrect, again provided I understand the system. As a practical matter in the ACBL, it's hard to predict what would happen, but I think a competent Director would adjust unless there's more to the story. If given all the circumstances the 3C bid is so very strange that passing it is not a LA, then letting the result stand may be OK. (I'd want to check whether other LA's exist and are less suggested, but probably only 3S is a candidate.) From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Jun 10 00:08:50 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:08:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <060F5F0F-CAF6-4F78-B1B4-89A9BCEEAA8E@starpower.net> References: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> <060F5F0F-CAF6-4F78-B1B4-89A9BCEEAA8E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DF14472.5050900@nhcc.net> On 6/9/2011 2:28 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > The weakness in Jerry's > position is that it requires us to bring down upon the heads of > little-old-lady novices the same full weight and majesty of the law > as we would upon the heads of what used to be called "known > cheaters", Without questioning the logic of Eric's argument, here seems to be the meat of the question. Suppose you have the most innocent little old lady you can imagine, but she perpetrates a classic Alcatraz Coup. Let's even say she's just out of the beginner's class and surely has never had a nefarious idea occur to her. Indeed you are entirely certain in your own mind that the revoke was a careless accident because she can barely tell the suits apart. Do you apply L23 or not? I do, and I expect most other people do, and I don't really think we will have trouble explaining the ruling to her. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 10 01:03:34 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:03:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Depraved [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Florence Kennedy (1916-2000), American lawyer: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Nigel Guthrie: >I did not misrepresent Richard's oft-stated view that, for >law purposes, your agreement is not what is on the >partnership system-cards but what is in the partnership >heads. >..... Richard Hills: Not quite my view, therefore a little bit of a mis- representation (which, in my opinion, is analogous to "a little bit pregnant"). Nigel should reread Law 40C1, and then Nigel would realise that "what is in the partnership heads" is too sweeping a paraphrase. For example, North may misbid due to temporary amnesia. South may coincidentally misexplain North's call due to South also having temporary amnesia. Although North and South have the same thoughts currently traversing the partnership heads, South has still made an MI infraction. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110609/b30e57a4/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Jun 10 04:20:44 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:20:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements Message-ID: I sat down to play with someone who had sat waiting for me to collect money, with time left to play one board of the round, and he hadn't made a convention card! So I said we were playing what I thought he would be playing. Legal I assume. But strange. I realized that all of my explanations had to be correct. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 04:39:55 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 21:39:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: Since Eric is still graciously trying to understand and explain, I will try to do the same. I see some progress today. On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > Jerry's view, as I've understood it, is that if the information > arising strictly from the action at the table is sufficient to give > the infraction a positive expectation, we are to presume that the > player had whatever other information he might have needed at the > time to determine that positive expectation. > Exactly right! I want the director to assume that the player could have figured out that his action would lead to an expected benefit for his side at the time of his irregularity. It is like assuming the player is an evil, diabolical genius, whether he is or not. Whether the director thinks the player really could, would, or did really do that is beside the point. I think I am echoing what Steve Willner said today in this thread. > My view requires that the information that the infractor had at the > time of his infraction is sufficient for him to determine that the > expected value of his result will be improved by the infraction. > >?Mine is that whether or > not he could have had whatever other information he would have needed > to make that determination is simply one more requirement of the law > to be determined by the director, based on the available evidence, > and if the director decides that that is not a possibility, he does > not apply L23. > Yes, this as Eric's suggested way. On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > >> As promised yesterday, I will now address the issue that Eric called >> "direct libel." ?I will try to handle the issue better this time. >> >> Perhaps I should just quote this from Richard Hills: ?"A >> canonical example of a Law 23 infraction is East-West >> bidding constructively in diamonds and North-South using >> the favourable vulnerability to bid preemptively in >> spades. East bids 6D, South saves in 6S, West bids 7D and >> South doubles out-of-turn holding the ace of diamonds. >> North's enforced Pass means that North does not take the >> phantom sacrifice in 7S. Whether North-South are little >> old ladies who are always smiling, or whether North- >> South are unsmiling joyless experts who like winning >> ugly, in both cases the Director applies Law 23." >> >> I entirely agree with this. ?I will use this example where South >> doubles out of turn and gets his predictably great result. >> >> Eric would apparently let the little old ladies who are always smiling >> off if he knows (or almost sure knows) their character to be >> excellent. ?Also, he would let them off if he knew that they were >> beginners. > > There are no circumstances in this case under which I would "let them > off". ?Even the rawest novice little old lady must know that by > doubling she is telling partner that she expects the contract to go > down, which would prevent her partner from saving, even if she could > not possibly have known that the law would do that for her. It seems that Eric missed that both Richard and I are referring not to doubling, but to doubling out_of_turn. Raw novice little old ladies usually won't know what happens when a director rules after a double out of turn, but I still recommend the director assuming they do anyway, just like Steve recommended today. The phrase "let them off" that I used was just supposed to stand for a finding of no need for an L23 rectification. Perhaps Eric can suggest a better phrase for that. > >> ? And he says that he would let them off if the self-serving >> statement "comes >> from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report >> scoring errors in [her] favor."---June 6. ?Hardly objective, I think, >> but that is what he said. > > Jerry has gotten hung up on this, and, similarly, on my statement > about "100 to 1 odds". I thought it was what Eric was suggesting. Eric, please let us know the procedure you have in mind if it differs from your previous statements in this thread. ?I would suggest going back and reading those > remarks in context. ?They were offered, external to the discussion of > L23, to support my general argument that directors are called upon to > judge the credibility of their players regularly and routinely, and > manage to do so in whatever manner makes them comfortable, against > Jerry's argument that doing so consitutes impossible and thus > inherently unfair "mind reading" that directors shouldn't even > attempt. Directors should not attempt to determine intent when the law does not ask them to. Seem simple enough. And no one on BLML has yet said that intent is worth finding out in L23 cases. > ?They were certainly not in any way meant to offer a > specific procedure for L23 cases. I thought Eric was advising us on how to handle L23 cases. Does he offer advice, but no procedure? If Eric feels that he has never suggested a specific procedure, will he be willing to offer his suggested procedure now? > Of > course any director's "knowledge" about a player is central to his > L23 ruling, or any other ruling for which rectification isn't pre- > determined. It is possible that a director might have to determine their partnership understandings, which may involve some questions or prior knowledge about them. If you ask them questions to find their methods that you need to know for the L23 ruling, okay. You might even need to gage the player's honesty to determine their partnership understandings. I am certainly okay with that. You might also need to determine whether some education or discipline is worthwhile, and you may need questions for that. Absolutely; please do. But other than those two specific possibilities, I suggest that the director's belief about a player's experience, friendliness, kindness, honesty, race, religion, politics, looks, gender, age, intelligence, familiarity, kindness to animals, etc, have no place in making a good L23 ruling. Some things are best ignored for good bridge rulings. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 05:03:46 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:03:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: <060F5F0F-CAF6-4F78-B1B4-89A9BCEEAA8E@starpower.net> References: <0B8C78D5-B522-4DB8-8348-54B93F407953@starpower.net> <060F5F0F-CAF6-4F78-B1B4-89A9BCEEAA8E@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Before the back and forth between Jerry and me degenerates into one > of those "Herm-interminable" threads, or, worse yet, sinks to the > level of personal invective, That'll never happen! > let me see if I can clarify what is > really at issue between us, in the hope of getting us off to a fresh > start that might yet lead to some resolution of the real differences > in our viewpoints. Also, please check my short email with a similar goal about nine hours ago. > > To begin with, the point at issue is not specifically about L23, or > L16B3, or any other law in particular. ?It is about how, in > interpreting TFLB, we treat such phrases as "could have been aware", > "could have known", "could have been suggested", etc. in general. > Such phraseology appears in at least half a dozen separate laws, and, > if nothing else, we should agree that they are to be interpreted in a > manner that is consistent among them. Sounds good! [Long snip because Steve Willner's response today is well focused and is better than anything I can do] > > But we need to wipe some mud off the table. ?Jerry has made > statements which appear to suggest that I favor (a) because I *want* > to be able to give better rulings to people I like than to people I > don't. No, I don't mean to suggest that at all. I think Eric favors (a) for two reasons: Because he thinks it allows him to "do justice," and because he thinks it is his duty and calling. He does not do it because he wants to give better rulings to his friends. I never said anything negative about Eric's intentions, which I have always known to be honorable. I kinda think everyone on BLML knows that, but I might as well say the obvious. > I would appreciate a definitive assurance from him that he > does not actually believe this. Have I accomplished what you want here? >?And I may have made statements which > appear to suggest that Jerry favors (b) because he does not want, out > of laziness or insecurity, to step up to the more difficult of the > decision-making obligations the job of a professional TD demands of > him. ?I hereby definitively declare that I do not actually believe this. Alright, thanks, but I was not afraid of anything along these lines. I know that I am not a great bridge-law authority, though I hope to be one in a decade or two. > > I will be out of touch with BLML for about a week and a half > beginning sometime tomorrow, but will return hoping we can take up > this discussion anew using this attempted recapitulation as a > starting point. > Sounds fine to me. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 05:11:56 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:11:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I sat down to play with someone who had sat waiting for me to collect > money, with time left to play one board of the round, and he hadn't made a > convention card! > > So I said we were playing what I thought he would be playing. > > Legal I assume. But strange. I realized that all of my explanations had to > be correct. I would say no. Perhaps you got the statement of partnership agreements right, but not the partnership understandings. The latter term is what the law now mostly uses. If there is no meeting of the minds, there is no understanding, and therefore you are most likely supplying lots of MI and causing lots of UI when you disclose what you imagine are your methods. The meeting of minds I refer to is not the names of your agreements, but the specifics. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 10 08:27:50 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:27:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Multiple Definitions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Definitions: Play ? 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead. 2. The aggregate of plays made. 3. The period during which the cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board. Sven Pran: >..... >Harald's understanding that Law 90B2 only applies during >the play period is certainly a misunderstanding. >..... Richard Hills: I would quibble about the word "certainly". Because "play" has four Definitions, its interpretation must depend upon the context in which it is used. Harald's view of the Law 90B2 context merely differs from the contextual view of Sven and myself. (For example, if I was TD and the Ali- Hills pair took 45 minutes for a relay auction, it would not matter that Hills claimed at trick one of the play; as TD I would still believe that a Law 90B2 PP was legal.) To my mind, the problem is the Drafting Committee's over- succinct use of language (although in defence of the DC, a large amount of this over-succinct language was forcibly inherited from the 1997 Lawbook, due to the riding instructions from the ACBL Laws Commission that changes to the Lawbook should be incremental). In the Definitions no fewer than seven terms have multiple meanings: Auction, Board, Contestant (misused in Law 68A, creating an unintended consequence of allowing a Secretary Bird to meretriciously(1) argue that dummy is permitted to claim), Deal, Dummy, Play, Session. And then there is the classic misnomer. Although the Definition of a "logical alternative" proves that it is not necessarily logical, appeals casebooks still show TDs and/or ACs erring in their LA rulings due to this very misleading traditional name. To get the emphasis where it belongs retitle LA "peer option" or "clone alternative". Best wishes Richard Hills (1) Happy Christmas in June, an informal Canberra tradition coinciding with our seasonal coldness and the forthcoming long weekend. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110610/0563dfdf/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 13:12:18 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:12:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Multiple Definitions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/6/10 : > Definitions: > > Play ? 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a > trick, including the first card, which is the lead. 2. The > aggregate of plays made. 3. The period during which the > cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls and plays > on a board. > > Sven Pran: > >>..... >>Harald's understanding that Law 90B2 only applies during >>the play period is certainly a misunderstanding. >>..... > > Richard Hills: > > I would quibble about the word "certainly". Because "play" > has four Definitions, its interpretation must depend upon > the context in which it is used. Harald's view of the Law > 90B2 context merely differs from the contextual view of > Sven and myself. Actually, I agree with both of you that L90B2 applies throughout, not only in the play period. :-) But I strongly disagree with Richard that it's applicable to the actual situation, as opening leaders partner was following the law in the actual situation. And had a legal reason to ask what he asked. > (For example, if I was TD and the Ali- > Hills pair took 45 minutes for a relay auction, it would > not matter that Hills claimed at trick one of the play; > as TD I would still believe that a Law 90B2 PP was legal.) Agree. But I'd not invoke a penalty in a long teams match, unless they actually spent more than the time allowed for the actual session. > > To my mind, the problem is the Drafting Committee's over- > succinct use of language (although in defence of the DC, a > large amount of this over-succinct language was forcibly > inherited from the 1997 Lawbook, due to the riding > instructions from the ACBL Laws Commission that changes to > the Lawbook should be incremental). In the Definitions no > fewer than seven terms have multiple meanings: > > Auction, Board, Contestant (misused in Law 68A, creating > an unintended consequence of allowing a Secretary Bird to > meretriciously(1) argue that dummy is permitted to claim), > Deal, Dummy, Play, Session. > > And then there is the classic misnomer. Although the > Definition of a "logical alternative" proves that it is > not necessarily logical, appeals casebooks still show TDs > and/or ACs erring in their LA rulings due to this very > misleading traditional name. To get the emphasis where it > belongs retitle LA "peer option" or "clone alternative". > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > (1) Happy Christmas in June, an informal Canberra > tradition coinciding with our seasonal coldness and the > forthcoming long weekend. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 17:42:35 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:42:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Multiple Definitions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > Sven Pran: > >>..... >>Harald's understanding that Law 90B2 only applies during >>the play period is certainly a misunderstanding. >>..... > > Richard Hills: > > I would quibble about the word "certainly". Because "play" > has four Definitions, its interpretation must depend upon > the context in which it is used. Play period ? commences when the opening lead on a board is faced; contestants? rights and powers in the play period each expire as the relevant Law provides. The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted). There is only one definition of play period. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Fri Jun 10 18:25:53 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:25:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Multiple Definitions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01cc278b$11e59de0$35b0d9a0$@online.no> > Jerry Fusselman > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > > Sven Pran: > > > >>..... > >>Harald's understanding that Law 90B2 only applies during the play > >>period is certainly a misunderstanding. > >>..... > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I would quibble about the word "certainly". Because "play" > > has four Definitions, its interpretation must depend upon the context > > in which it is used. > > Play period - commences when the opening lead on a board is faced; > contestants' rights and powers in the play period each expire as the relevant > Law provides. The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from > their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is > quitted). > > There is only one definition of play period. > > Jerry Fusselman [Sven Pran] But Law 90B2 concerns: "unduly slow play by a contestant", it doesn't in any way refer to the play period. And there are four (alternative) definitions of "play". From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 19:51:15 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:51:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Multiple Definitions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01cc278b$11e59de0$35b0d9a0$@online.no> References: <000f01cc278b$11e59de0$35b0d9a0$@online.no> Message-ID: Thanks, Sven; now I finally understand what Richard is saying here. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 11 02:20:26 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:20:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:11:56 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I sat down to play with someone who had sat waiting for me to collect >> money, with time left to play one board of the round, and he hadn't >> made a >> convention card! >> >> So I said we were playing what I thought he would be playing. >> >> Legal I assume. But strange. I realized that all of my explanations had >> to >> be correct. > > I would say no. Perhaps you got the statement of partnership > agreements right, but not the partnership understandings. The latter > term is what the law now mostly uses. > > If there is no meeting of the minds, there is no understanding, and > therefore you are most likely supplying lots of MI and causing lots of > UI when you disclose what you imagine are your methods. > > The meeting of minds I refer to is not the names of your agreements, > but the specifics. It doesn't seem right that my partner and I cannot agree, for example, to play the system in a book and yet not have that be our understanding. Or even worse that we can agree to play system notes and not have that be our agreement. Agreeing 'to play what I thought we would be playing' seems no different in principle. (More generally, the idea that 'a meeting of minds defines partnership understandings' handles some situations well and other situations poorly. It was put forth as an idea, but I am pretty sure there were different variations (for how to handle the awkward situations), I don't think anyone found a really good formulation, and there wasn't agreement in favor.) From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 04:22:20 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:22:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:11:56 -0400, Jerry Fusselman > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> I sat down to play with someone who had sat waiting for me to collect >>> money, with time left to play one board of the round, and he hadn't >>> made a >>> convention card! >>> >>> So I said we were playing what I thought he would be playing. >>> >>> Legal I assume. But strange. I realized that all of my explanations had >>> to >>> be correct. >> >> I would say no. ?Perhaps you got the statement of partnership >> agreements right, but not the partnership understandings. ?The latter >> term is what the law now mostly uses. >> >> If there is no meeting of the minds, there is no understanding, and >> therefore you are most likely supplying lots of MI and causing lots of >> UI when you disclose what you imagine are your methods. >> >> The meeting of minds I refer to is not the names of your agreements, >> but the specifics. > > > It doesn't seem right that my partner and I cannot agree, for example, to > play the system in a book and yet not have that be our understanding. Or > even worse that we can agree to play system notes and not have that be our > agreement. > > Agreeing 'to play what I thought we would be playing' seems no different > in principle. > > (More generally, the idea that 'a meeting of minds defines partnership > understandings' handles some situations well and other situations poorly. > It was put forth as an idea, but I am pretty sure there were different > variations (for how to handle the awkward situations), I don't think > anyone found a really good formulation, and there wasn't agreement in > favor.) > Well, I would say that Robert understood me perfectly, which is delightful. I am not surprised, for I tend to respond only to BLMLers who have shown great reading comprehension and, more importantly, proven to be honest researchers. Lest there be any doubt due vague wording in my recent posts, I always include Eric Landau and Herman De Wael among the absolute top in these two categories that I admire so much. I might add something more tomorrow, but I am currently intrigued by Robert's statement, " 'a meeting of minds defines partnership understandings' handles some situations well and other situations poorly." Would Robert be willing to give an example of the situations that it handles poorly? Currently, I find it difficult to imagine a definition of "understanding" that contradicts a "meeting of the minds." Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 11 04:24:48 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 03:24:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] System after insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <3C84AF22-C6A4-4A0F-A5C8-6522AD2D6FCF@starpower.net> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott I know that this has been discussed many times. I have > not paid too much attention, but I think you are not > allowed to have agreements after an insufficient bid > by opponents in USA (and perhaps elsewhere). Today > however, I had an Eric moment: > > RHO me LHO pard > 2NT(wk, both minors) pass 2C accepts, 3H > etc. > > As a result of this auction and our detailed discussion after > I now have an agreement about this sequence, and also > if partner does not accept and then bids 3H, and also > if partner doubles 2C, or the correction to 3C. I do > not expect to have it come up again in my lifetime, but it > means I will have to alert the opponents anytime > my partner bids over the insufficient bid (or the corrected > suffiicient bid) Which isn't a problem. The problem arises when regulations forbid you to have such an agreement, in which case you will have to suffer through a director call, a likely committee hearing, and presumably an adverse score adjustment, any time your partner bids over any future IB (or its correction). > As an Australian director, I usually give a bit of advice to > the person facing the insufficient bid. I do not want to > have to say "if you accept the insufficient bid, you must > not have any discussion of your action with your partner, > because it would lead to an implicit agreement which is > illegal in the US" Please tell me Richard, that it is not > illegal in Australia That misunderstands the concept of implicit agreement. If the person accepts IB and then discusses his action with his partner, that produces an *explicit* agreement. If you have no such discussion, however, you will still be presumed to have observed your partner's action and the holding on which he based it, which will make it easier for you to interpret similar (or alternative) actions in the future. *That's* what is meant by *implicit* agreement, and nothing you tell your players will allow them to avoid it. Because L40 mandates that explicit and implicit agreements be treated identically, you cannot make it an infraction to reach an explicit agreement through discussion without making it an identical infraction to encounter the situation for the second time even if you have had no overt discussion of your actions on the previous occasion. Historically, this has been a problem because certain lawmakers, desirous of outlawing certain classes of explicit agreements, failed to grasp the implications of L40. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 11 05:05:29 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:05:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:22:20 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:11:56 -0400, Jerry Fusselman >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> I sat down to play with someone who had sat waiting for me to collect >>>> money, with time left to play one board of the round, and he hadn't >>>> made a >>>> convention card! >>>> >>>> So I said we were playing what I thought he would be playing. >>>> >>>> Legal I assume. But strange. I realized that all of my explanations >>>> had >>>> to >>>> be correct. >>> >>> I would say no. Perhaps you got the statement of partnership >>> agreements right, but not the partnership understandings. The latter >>> term is what the law now mostly uses. >>> >>> If there is no meeting of the minds, there is no understanding, and >>> therefore you are most likely supplying lots of MI and causing lots of >>> UI when you disclose what you imagine are your methods. >>> >>> The meeting of minds I refer to is not the names of your agreements, >>> but the specifics. >> >> >> It doesn't seem right that my partner and I cannot agree, for example, >> to >> play the system in a book and yet not have that be our understanding. Or >> even worse that we can agree to play system notes and not have that be >> our >> agreement. >> >> Agreeing 'to play what I thought we would be playing' seems no different >> in principle. >> >> (More generally, the idea that 'a meeting of minds defines partnership >> understandings' handles some situations well and other situations >> poorly. >> It was put forth as an idea, but I am pretty sure there were different >> variations (for how to handle the awkward situations), I don't think >> anyone found a really good formulation, and there wasn't agreement in >> favor.) >> > > Well, I would say that Robert understood me perfectly, which is > delightful. I am not surprised, for I tend to respond only to BLMLers > who have shown great reading comprehension and, more importantly, > proven to be honest researchers. Lest there be any doubt due vague > wording in my recent posts, I always include Eric Landau and Herman De > Wael among the absolute top in these two categories that I admire so > much. > > I might add something more tomorrow, but I am currently intrigued by > Robert's statement, " 'a meeting of minds defines partnership > understandings' handles some situations well and other situations > poorly." Would Robert be willing to give an example of the situations > that it handles poorly? Currently, I find it difficult to imagine a > definition of "understanding" that contradicts a "meeting of the > minds." I am not sure I remember them all. I think the toughest pair is this. #1. I ask my partner: Do you want to play Bergen over a takeout double? He says no. We have an agreement and a meeting of minds. But a month later he does Bergen over a takeout double and expects me to figure it out. No meeting of minds. Has the agreement disappeared? #2. A player agrees to play RKCB. He does not know the queen asking bids, but his partner does. No agreement because no meeting of minds? Then, during the next month, the player learns them. So they still have no agreement? Obviously, this is easy for a simple 'meeting of the minds' formulation; the trick is handling #1 in a way that doesn't cause problems for #2. I am now remembering another problem, which is that the convention card is now not final authority on what a pair is playing. So, a player explains a bid as Cappelletti, but the player didn't use Cappelletti. Normal practice is if Cappelletti is on the convention card, end of story that is what they are playing. But it works well when the "misbidder" doesn't even know what Cappelletti is From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 11 17:06:35 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:06:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:22:20 -0400, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:11:56 -0400, Jerry Fusselman >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>>> I sat down to play with someone who had sat waiting for me to collect >>>> money, with time left to play one board of the round, and he hadn't >>>> made a >>>> convention card! >>>> >>>> So I said we were playing what I thought he would be playing. >>>> >>>> Legal I assume. But strange. I realized that all of my explanations >>>> had >>>> to >>>> be correct. >>> >>> I would say no. Perhaps you got the statement of partnership >>> agreements right, but not the partnership understandings. The latter >>> term is what the law now mostly uses. >>> >>> If there is no meeting of the minds, there is no understanding, and >>> therefore you are most likely supplying lots of MI and causing lots of >>> UI when you disclose what you imagine are your methods. >>> >>> The meeting of minds I refer to is not the names of your agreements, >>> but the specifics. >> >> >> It doesn't seem right that my partner and I cannot agree, for example, >> to >> play the system in a book and yet not have that be our understanding. Or >> even worse that we can agree to play system notes and not have that be >> our >> agreement. >> >> Agreeing 'to play what I thought we would be playing' seems no different >> in principle. >> >> (More generally, the idea that 'a meeting of minds defines partnership >> understandings' handles some situations well and other situations >> poorly. >> It was put forth as an idea, but I am pretty sure there were different >> variations (for how to handle the awkward situations), I don't think >> anyone found a really good formulation, and there wasn't agreement in >> favor.) >> > > Well, I would say that Robert understood me perfectly, which is > delightful. I am not surprised, for I tend to respond only to BLMLers > who have shown great reading comprehension and, more importantly, > proven to be honest researchers. Lest there be any doubt due vague > wording in my recent posts, I always include Eric Landau and Herman De > Wael among the absolute top in these two categories that I admire so > much. > > I might add something more tomorrow, but I am currently intrigued by > Robert's statement, " 'a meeting of minds defines partnership > understandings' handles some situations well and other situations > poorly." Would Robert be willing to give an example of the situations > that it handles poorly? Currently, I find it difficult to imagine a > definition of "understanding" that contradicts a "meeting of the > minds." I remembered another that was at least a problem for me. Yesterday, a player jump overcalled 2NT to show the other minor and one of the majors. When her partner was asked about the meaning of the bid, she said maybe it meant that but maybe it was for the two lowest suits. If I had been called to the table, I would have asked the partner to leave and had the player explain her bid (or, more technically, her judgment as to the partnership agreement). If she said "no agreement" or something like that, I would say "bullshit" (or something like that), because she wouldn't have made the bid if she thought there was no agreement. And if she wants to hold to "no agreement", I am going to expect good evidence that is true (L75), like that it is written on her convention card. Which she isn't going to have. In the "meeting of minds determines agreements" idea, no agreement is the correct answer, and she is allowed to give it (because her partner's explanation is AI to her for purposes of explaining bids). And she has great evidence that it is true. I am not fond of that ruling. From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 12:47:06 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 06:47:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge bulletin board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions regarding the Laws, adjustments, and the like. Assume the following: E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in their bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. East chooses to bid <> and the partnership eventually lands in a game contract with East declaring. During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He does not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid with a hand than does not match said description. East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had additional information there was a significant chance that they would chose another line of defense. Question for the peanut gallery: When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he legally required to disclose? - The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand - The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand plus information about this (new) hand type. - Something else Thanks in advance -- 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 -- 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/20110612/5c20fc3d/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Jun 12 17:39:41 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 23:39:41 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: richard willey To: blml at rtflb.org Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 6:47 PM Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements Hi All I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge bulletin board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions regarding the Laws, adjustments, and the like. Assume the following: E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in their bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. East chooses to bid <> and the partnership eventually lands in a game contract with East declaring. During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He does not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid with a hand than does not match said description. East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had additional information there was a significant chance that they would chose another line of defense. Question for the peanut gallery: When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he legally required to disclose? The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand **Yes** The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand plus information about this (new) hand type. **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit or implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end of he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the time the bid <> was made. NS are trying it on** Something else **It looks like there may be some confusion with L40C1 but there is no undisclosed knowledge to which NS are entitled. All of the information is covered by L40A3. there have been no repeated deviations, this is a one off and L40C2 "Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods." applies** cheers bill Thanks in advance -- 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 -- 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 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 19:51:26 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:51:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DF4FC9E.5000109@gmail.com> On 06/12/2011 06:47 AM, richard willey wrote: > Hi All > > I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge bulletin > board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions regarding the Laws, > adjustments, and the like. > > Assume the following: > > E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an > asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in > their bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. > > East chooses to bid <> and the partnership eventually lands > in a game contract with East declaring. > > During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the > ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He > does not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid > with a hand than does not match said description. > > East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the > defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had > additional information there was a significant chance that they would > chose another line of defense. > > > Question for the peanut gallery: > > When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he > legally required to disclose? > > * The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand > * The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered > this hand plus information about this (new) hand type. > * Something else > Having seen Bill's reply, I want to differ just slightly from it. I'm sure Bill is technically correct as the Laws go, but Richard is aware of a minor hole which my partner and I recently found in a scheme of Two Level openers that Richard (more or less?) designed. We found one particular hand shape and range which wasn't covered. The fix was fairly obvious, and the problem I have is that my partner, presented with the same hand, would *undoubtedly* have bent the same response as I did to cover the hole. What were the chances or my partner realising at the same time that I couldn't bid the particular shape I held? Slim, but IMHO non-zero, so I felt uneasy about hiding my deliberate misbid. This was online, so it made life easy, I just told opps privately that I didn't have a bid to cover that particular hand shape, and so that instead of guaranteeing three cards in the bid suit, I might have had to bid a doubleton with one specific shape. Was it telling them my hand? Probably, but since I was only telling them that I could hold 4-2-2-5 as well as the agreed 4-1-3-5 I didn't feel that I was giving the opponents an enormous advantage. Brian. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 20:30:41 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:30:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Richard Willey wrote: > > Assume the following: > > E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an asking > bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in their bidding > system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. I don't know whether to ask what the hole is or to just assume something simple or just to speak generally. I will try to speak generally, but if Richard Willey could add this information, it might help for smoother discourse. > > East chooses to bid <> and the partnership eventually lands in a > game contract with East declaring. > > During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the > ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He does > not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid with a hand > than does not match said description. > > East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the defense. > They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had additional information > there was a significant chance that they would chose another line of > defense. > > Question for the peanut gallery: > > When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he legally > required to disclose? > > The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand No, this would be inadequate, as I hope to demonstrate below. > The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand plus > information about this (new) hand type. > Something else > [Eric Landau, 13 Jan 2011, "EBU L&EC meeting 3rd November 2010 - L20"] The "Kaplan paradigm" may be defunct, but, hopefully, the much simpler ("ACBL") paradigm still lives: Your opponents are entitled to know as much about the meaning of partner's call as you do. [ACBL alert procedures] [...] When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically. [...] In this case, I think the Kaplan paradigm and the ACBL paradigm imply the same answer, so I can focus on the ACBL paradigm. My respect for the ACBL approach keeps growing. Though I was thinking initially of some censure, I will not say today that East is sneaky, for he has probably heard the phrase "partnership agreements" for many years, and he may imagine that his duty is fulfilled by focusing exclusively on things explicitly said in the partnership. That is, even though I believe that East has failed in his disclosure obligations, I would probably not assign a PP to East. I will assume that his failed disclosure is not his fault---it is likely that several directors have poisoned his understanding of his obligations. Honestly, I am worried---am I too soft here today? Some other day, I would give East a PP to help him (and everyone else) do better in the future. Returning to the rectification issue, in the ACBL paradigm, East should supply the same information that he would give if either opponent asked the exactly-right question. In this case, the exactly-right question is, "what would East's response be if he had ?" Bridge is not supposed to be a game where you wait for the perfect question before you supply useful information. East should have assumed the exactly-right question. East should have supplied everything he knew about the possible meanings of the bid, including that it might be the hole hand. East should have mentioned both possibilities. Maybe I should give East a PP after all. East did not do what he must; he did not provide all relevant disclosure. The opponents were damaged, and I would adjust the scores for both sides to down one, or worse. Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Jun 12 23:31:40 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:31:40 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proposed Rule Change, mistaken explanation corrected after OL Message-ID: There is a mistaken explanation or failure to alert during the auction, the opening lead is make, the dummy is faced, and the problem is discovered. Now what? Consider two possible actions. #1. Defender is allowed to withdraw her lead and then lead whatever she wants after seeing whatever of the dummy is exposed. Then play continues. #2. Offending side gets the better of (1) what happened when play was continued with that lead or (2) Director determination what might have happened if the players had been given the correct information. (Play of the hand may influence this second decision.) #1 is much simpler for the director. #1 better fits the philosophy of letting the players play the hand, which is presumably what players want. One could argue that #1 is unfair to the offending side, which by the way has now committed two infractions. But the same could be said for most laws -- the revoke laws, the penalty card, the call out of turn. The laws almost always provide a simple solution that allows the hand to be played yet is harsh enough to (almost) guarantee that the offending side does not profit. In ACBL-land, I am reasonably confident that #1 is actually the better deal for the nonoffending side. Using #2, the defenders get to consider all four hands and argue that that the best opening lead has some reasonable likelihood, and they probably get the benefit of the doubt in the play of the hand too. In both ACBL-land and elsewhere, the nonoffending gets the benefit of the actual lead when that lead works out well. For example, a player leads a singleton diamond, then discovers that declarer's diamond bid was natural, instead of artificial (as described during the auction). Following #2, if partner has the ace, they get to keep the lead; if partner doesn't have the ace, they get an adjusted score. Following #1, the player has to decide whether or not to lead a diamond, and it is not an easy decision. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jun 13 00:45:58 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:45:58 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proposed Rule Change, mistaken explanation corrected after OL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > There is a mistaken explanation or failure to alert during the auction, > the opening lead is make, the dummy is faced, and the problem is > discovered. Now what? Consider two possible actions. > > #1. Defender is allowed to withdraw her lead and then lead whatever she > wants after seeing whatever of the dummy is exposed. Then play continues. > > #2. Offending side gets the better of (1) what happened when play was > continued with that lead or (2) Director determination what might have > happened if the players had been given the correct information. (Play of > the hand may influence this second decision.) > > #1 is much simpler for the director. #1 better fits the philosophy of > letting the players play the hand, which is presumably what players want. The problem with #1 is that it requires an adjustment on the spot, which may have to be retracted on appeal if it is determined that there was no failure to alert, or that the leader failed to protect himself from failure to alert. Given the complexity of the alert rules, there will be retractions and now you have to use Law 82 and give both sides the benefit of the doubt. In addition, there are many uncorrected failures to alert, and you have made the penalty much worse. Consider the auction 1NT-2C-2S-2NT-3NT. In the ACBL, this is alertable if responder may not have four hearts, but many intermediate players do not know about the alert. Most of the time, it doesn't affect the lead, but your proposed correction allows opening leader to change his lead whenever the alert is missing, whether or not the alert had anything to do with the lead. And even a player who knows the alert rules and suspects the missed alert can say that he refused to ask for fear of creating UI. If opening leader asks about 2NT and is told that it does show four hearts, he creates the UI that he was considering a different lead. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 13 09:40:28 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:40:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DF5BEEC.5020604@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > Hi All > > I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge bulletin > board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions regarding the Laws, > adjustments, and the like. > > Assume the following: > > E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an > asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in their > bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. > > East chooses to bid <> and the partnership eventually lands > in a game contract with East declaring. > > During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the > ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He > does not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid > with a hand than does not match said description. > > East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the > defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had additional > information there was a significant chance that they would chose another > line of defense. > > > Question for the peanut gallery: > > When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he legally > required to disclose? > > * The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand > * The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this > hand plus information about this (new) hand type. > * Something else > The opponents are entitled to all the information that is available to the pair in question. Of course, this is usually far too much to be saying at the table. In this case, the opponents are entitled to the meaning of all the responses that were available to the player. And that includes the conclusion that there is a hole in that structure. The opponents are not required to make the deduction that there is a hole for themselves, that should be explained to them. It is possible that a hole remains in the system, but then the escape mechanism for the hole should be explained. No-one will ever be able to tell whether the pair had discovered the hole and the escape mechanism before this hand came up or afterwards. An example: Playing 2-over-1, the 4-5-2-2 distribution (low point range) is impossible to bid after 1H-1NT. Standard is that 2H shows 6 cards and 2C/D shows 3. A pair that has talked about this hole and decided to bid 2H and should explain 2H as "6 cards or 4-5-2-2". A pair that decides to bid 2C should explain it as "3 cards or 4-5-2-2". But a pair that has not talked about it will also bid something, and the opponents are entitled to the same information, since the pair cannot prove they have not talked about it. > Thanks in advance > You're welcome. > > -- > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3699 - Release Date: 06/12/11 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 13 09:42:54 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:42:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand plus > information about this (new) hand type. > > **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit or > implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end of > he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully > explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the time > the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** > > > cheers > > bill > While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact decide upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk after the fact? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Jun 13 10:11:28 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:11:28 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements References: <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure requirements > Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: >> >> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand >> plus >> information about this (new) hand type. >> >> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit >> or >> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end >> of >> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully >> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the >> time >> the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** >> >> >> cheers >> >> bill >> > > While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence > whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the > above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact decide > upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the > opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk > after the fact? > So at the table, with no further information, you rule that on the balance of probability East has lied? cheers bill > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 13 10:56:27 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:56:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> References: <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> Message-ID: <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:42 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure requirements > > >> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: >>> >>> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand >>> plus >>> information about this (new) hand type. >>> >>> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit >>> or >>> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end >>> of >>> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully >>> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the >>> time >>> the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** >>> >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> bill >>> >> >> While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence >> whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the >> above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact decide >> upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the >> opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk >> after the fact? >> > > So at the table, with no further information, you rule that on the balance > of probability East has lied? > No, surely we both know how to explain to East that we rule against him because he does exactly the same as someone who might be dishonest. And we can easily say to him that since he made the bid, there must be some reason for it - and his opponents are entitled to know what that reason is, even if he does not know it himself. On saturday, a player bid 1Sp over partner's 1Di on Jxx xx Kxxxx Xxx (I don't remember which club honour). He said he'd never done so before, but told me he felt too strong for 3D and too weak for 2D. So I ruled that this was systemic, and then ruled against his opponent, stating he would not have lead differently if the explanation of 1Sp had been "99% of the time this is a 4-card suit". I feel that the 1Sp bidder, although I believe him when he said he had never done this before, could not prove that he had not discussed such a possibility with partner. > cheers > > bill > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jun 13 12:36:56 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:36:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> References: <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201106131037.p5DAbDo9017216@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 06:56 PM 13/06/2011, you wrote: >Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:42 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure requirements > > > > > >> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: > >>> > >>> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand > >>> plus > >>> information about this (new) hand type. > >>> > >>> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit > >>> or > >>> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end > >>> of > >>> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully > >>> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the > >>> time > >>> the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** > >>> > >>> > >>> cheers > >>> > >>> bill > >>> > >> > >> While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence > >> whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the > >> above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact decide > >> upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the > >> opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk > >> after the fact? > >> > > > > So at the table, with no further information, you rule that on the balance > > of probability East has lied? > > > >No, surely we both know how to explain to East that we rule against him >because he does exactly the same as someone who might be dishonest. And >we can easily say to him that since he made the bid, there must be some >reason for it - and his opponents are entitled to know what that reason >is, even if he does not know it himself. > >On saturday, a player bid 1Sp over partner's 1Di on Jxx xx Kxxxx Xxx (I >don't remember which club honour). He said he'd never done so before, >but told me he felt too strong for 3D and too weak for 2D. So I ruled >that this was systemic, and then ruled against his opponent, stating he >would not have lead differently if the explanation of 1Sp had been "99% >of the time this is a 4-card suit". > >I feel that the 1Sp bidder, although I believe him when he said he had >never done this before, could not prove that he had not discussed such a >possibility with partner. > > > cheers > > > > bill > > I'm not playing bridge in Belgium then (or US). If its my turn to bid, I bid. If I have spades I bid them, if I don't have spades then I bid them. Isn't this general bridge knowledge? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From vitoldbr at yandex.ru Mon Jun 13 15:01:13 2011 From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru (vitoldbr) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:01:13 +0400 Subject: [BLML] from Vitold Brushtunov, Russian bridge federation In-Reply-To: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> Message-ID: <329685871.20110613170113@yandex.ru> Dear sir, I have rather strange question: There happened infraction (during match ot pairs). TD was summoned and as case was not simple he ordered to continue playing and went to consider decision (collecting positions of peers and another TDs). Finally decision was made. And now - my question: is there any regulation, recommendation or any formulated position when TD's decision should be announced to these players - when they have a short pause between playing boards, as soon as possible (even during the play of that or another board), after the match (or round) is finished etc.? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Vitold -- Best regards, vitoldbr mailto:vitoldbr at yandex.ru From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 15:52:23 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:52:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] from Vitold Brushtunov, Russian bridge federation In-Reply-To: <329685871.20110613170113@yandex.ru> References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> <329685871.20110613170113@yandex.ru> Message-ID: <4DF61617.5020805@gmail.com> On 13/06/2011 15:01, vitoldbr wrote: > Dear sir, > I have rather strange question: > There happened infraction (during match ot pairs). TD was summoned and > as case was not simple he ordered to continue playing and went to > consider decision (collecting positions of peers and another TDs). > Finally decision was made. And now - my question: > is there any regulation, recommendation or any formulated position when > TD's decision should be announced to these players - when they have > a short pause between playing boards, as soon as possible (even during > the play of that or another board), after the match (or round) is > finished etc.? I don't think that there is any regulation. Looking at it from a practical aspect, I'd announce the decision between boards or at the end of the round, strongly depending on how much discussion I expect. I don't see why you should interrupt play for something that has nothing to do with the board being played. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 13 17:44:10 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:44:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proposed Rule Change, mistaken explanation corrected after OL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:45:58 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Frick" writes: > > >> There is a mistaken explanation or failure to alert during the auction, >> the opening lead is make, the dummy is faced, and the problem is >> discovered. Now what? Consider two possible actions. >> >> #1. Defender is allowed to withdraw her lead and then lead whatever she >> wants after seeing whatever of the dummy is exposed. Then play >> continues. >> >> #2. Offending side gets the better of (1) what happened when play was >> continued with that lead or (2) Director determination what might have >> happened if the players had been given the correct information. (Play of >> the hand may influence this second decision.) >> >> #1 is much simpler for the director. #1 better fits the philosophy of >> letting the players play the hand, which is presumably what players >> want. > > The problem with #1 is that it requires an adjustment on the spot, which > may > have to be retracted on appeal if it is determined that there was no > failure to > alert, or that the leader failed to protect himself from failure to > alert. > Given the complexity of the alert rules, there will be retractions and > now you > have to use Law 82 and give both sides the benefit of the doubt. Good point, but... The laws already force me to make this exact decision on the spot. For example, there is a face down opening lead. Can it be retracted because of failure to alert, mistaken explanation, etc.? I do not recall any trouble with this. > > In addition, there are many uncorrected failures to alert, and you have > made the > penalty much worse. Consider the auction 1NT-2C-2S-2NT-3NT. In the > ACBL, this > is alertable if responder may not have four hearts, but many intermediate > players do not know about the alert. Most of the time, it doesn't > affect the > lead, but your proposed correction allows opening leader to change his > lead > whenever the alert is missing, whether or not the alert had anything to > do with > the lead. But this change would not made the penalty much worse, especially in ACBL-land. It's an empirical question, of course, but it seems to me that nonoffending side does much better when they can see all four hands and just have to argue that the best defense is plausible. So, to the extent that this situation is a problem, and it is, it already exists. Hmm, and I have had to make the adjustment after the play of the hand for the exact situation you describe and I did not like doing it. > > And even a player who knows the alert rules and suspects the missed > alert can > say that he refused to ask for fear of creating UI. If opening leader > asks > about 2NT and is told that it does show four hearts, he creates the UI > that he > was considering a different lead. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 20:19:55 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:19:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] from Vitold Brushtunov, Russian bridge federation In-Reply-To: <329685871.20110613170113@yandex.ru> References: , <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain>, <329685871.20110613170113@yandex.ru> Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:01:13 +0400 > From: vitoldbr at yandex.ru > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] from Vitold Brushtunov, Russian bridge federation > > Dear sir, > I have rather strange question: > There happened infraction (during match ot pairs). TD was summoned and > as case was not simple he ordered to continue playing and went to > consider decision (collecting positions of peers and another TDs). > Finally decision was made. And now - my question: > is there any regulation, recommendation or any formulated position when > TD's decision should be announced to these players - when they have > a short pause between playing boards, as soon as possible (even during > the play of that or another board), after the match (or round) is > finished etc.? > Thanks in advance. > Best regards, > Vitold > > -- > Best regards, > vitoldbr mailto:vitoldbr at yandex.ru When one considers that the effect of interruptiong a hand can include irritation of players, distraction of players, intimidation of the players, unnecessary delay of the game, players forgetting where they were- in other words such things that breaches of L74 cause- it thus should be obvious that best of all is to never interrupt a board; and next best is only to interrupt a board where there is a necessary AND compelling need to do so [for instance recovering a movement]. I can't think of a third best. from someone that has suffered on the bad end of interruptions hundreds of times. regards roger pewick ps it occurred to me that [particularly in America] the effect of penultimate round announcements often infringe [being extremely lengthy and immensely irritating] on boards at multiple tables to repugnant effect. Best practice is to instead post announcements during the game so that players might take note of them at their leisure rather than mis-hear them. Then make only the announcements that have a compelling need. pps and speaking of announcements, the time to make thank-you announcements is not at the end of the game but the beginning- as during the time that players are called to take their places. This makes better use of the time wasted by stragglers while avoiding wasting time during the end of the game- killing as it were, three bids with one stone. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 00:53:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:53:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >..... >If she said "no agreement" or something like that, I >would say "bullshit" (or something like that), because >she wouldn't have made the bid if she thought there was >no agreement. >..... Richard Hills: Balderdash! (or something like that). When I know that my cards do not fit any prior partnership understanding, I then intentionally choose an undiscussed call. Maybe I will be lucky when pard guesses right, maybe I will be unlucky when pard guesses wrong. But much better than the certain bad luck that would follow a misdescriptive call which is a prior partnership understanding. On Bob's general thread-starting question -- [in what circumstances can one have a partnership understanding which is not a meeting-of-minds explicit partnership understanding?] -- I refer Bob to Law 40A1(a): "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or ***implicitly through mutual experience or awareness*** of the players." So if Bob is playing with a new partner from his club, and if they forget to explicitly discuss Stayman, but if the norm at Bob's club is Double-Barrelled Stayman, then Bob and new partner have a mutual experience implicit partnership understanding to use the Double-Barrelled Stayman convention. Robert Frick: >..... >#1. I ask my partner: Do you want to play Bergen over a >takeout double? He says no. We have an agreement and a >meeting of minds. But a month later he does Bergen over >a takeout double and expects me to figure it out. No >meeting of minds. Has the agreement disappeared? >..... Richard Hills: Not yet. A unilateral call by one partner is not a mutual understanding of both partners, so when partner made the call it was a legal unilateral variation under Law 40A3. However, ***after*** the end of the deal Bob and partner may well come to a new meeting of minds to switch to playing Bergen over a takeout double. What's the problem? The problem seems to me that many blmlers do not want the current Laws 40 and 75 to be fully maintained in the 2018 Lawbook (for example, in times past Herman De Wael has suggested that it was beneficial to the opponents to describe the cards in partner's hand, but contrariwise of lesser benefit to the opponents to only describe the pre-existing explicit or implicit mutual partnership understandings). Lewis Carroll: "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110613/68b3da13/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 01:33:26 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:33:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> Message-ID: Lord Hervey (1696-1743); "Whoever would lie usefully should lie seldom." Bill Kemp: >>So at the table, with no further information, you [Herman De >>Wael] rule that on the balance of probability East has lied? Herman De Wael: >No, surely we both know how to explain to East that we rule >against him because he does exactly the same as someone who >might be dishonest. >..... Richard Hills: This long-standing aspect of De Wael philosophy was exploded when the 2007 Lawbook took effect. The 1997 Law 85A (Rulings on Disputed Facts - Director's Assessment) had the single- word criterion "satisfied", which Herman De Wael interpreted as ["satisfied that a cheating East will not benefit"]. But in the 2007 Lawbook, only Law 23 and Law 73F are the so- called "could have known" Laws. Bill Kemp accurately advises that the 2007 Law 85A2 single-word criterion "satisfied" is now defined in the 2007 Law 85A1 as by "the balance of probabilities". So Bill Kemp is correct, and Herman De Wael is no longer correct since 2008. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110613/e9a0bc97/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Jun 14 03:15:11 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:15:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proposed Rule Change, mistaken explanation corrected after OL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Proposed Rule Change, mistaken explanation corrected after OL Robert Frick writes: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:45:58 -0400, David Grabiner > wrote: >> In addition, there are many uncorrected failures to alert, and you have >> made the >> penalty much worse. Consider the auction 1NT-2C-2S-2NT-3NT. In the >> ACBL, this >> is alertable if responder may not have four hearts, but many intermediate >> players do not know about the alert. Most of the time, it doesn't >> affect the >> lead, but your proposed correction allows opening leader to change his >> lead >> whenever the alert is missing, whether or not the alert had anything to >> do with >> the lead. > > But this change would not made the penalty much worse, especially in > ACBL-land. It's an empirical question, of course, but it seems to me that > nonoffending side does much better when they can see all four hands and > just have to argue that the best defense is plausible. The point is that in order to adjust for MI, you need to have two issues: would the play have been different with the MI, and would the different play have been more successful? 95% of the time, on this auction, my lead doesn't depend on whether dummy might not have four hearts and there is no adjustment, and usually no director call. But 50% of the time, after seeing the dummy, I will have a better idea of what to lead, and may even lead a card I wouldn't have considered otherwise. With A7 J63 QJ97 Q732, everyone leads the DQ, and I shouldn't have the right to switch to a club when dummy comes down with Q6 K54 KT865 96. That is what makes the penalty much worse. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 14 04:32:08 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:32:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 8th Sep 2009, item 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Vitold Brushtunov >..... >is there any regulation, recommendation or any formulated >position when TD's decision should be announced to these players >..... WBF LC minutes 8th Sep 2009, item 4 The committee considered a situation where there had been a request for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). This had created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110614/c33562da/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 14 11:07:03 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:07:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <4DF4FC9E.5000109@gmail.com> References: <4DF4FC9E.5000109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4DF724B7.4080600@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/06/2011 19:51, Brian a ?crit : > On 06/12/2011 06:47 AM, richard willey wrote: >> Hi All >> >> I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge bulletin >> board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions regarding the Laws, >> adjustments, and the like. >> >> Assume the following: >> >> E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an >> asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in >> their bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. >> >> East chooses to bid<> and the partnership eventually lands >> in a game contract with East declaring. >> >> During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the >> ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He >> does not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid >> with a hand than does not match said description. >> >> East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the >> defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had >> additional information there was a significant chance that they would >> chose another line of defense. >> >> >> Question for the peanut gallery: >> >> When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he >> legally required to disclose? >> >> * The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand >> * The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered >> this hand plus information about this (new) hand type. >> * Something else >> > Having seen Bill's reply, I want to differ just slightly from it. I'm > sure Bill is technically correct as the Laws go, but Richard is aware > of a minor hole which my partner and I recently found in a scheme of > Two Level openers that Richard (more or less?) designed. We found one > particular hand shape and range which wasn't covered. > > The fix was fairly obvious, and the problem I have is that my partner, > presented with the same hand, would *undoubtedly* have bent the same > response as I did to cover the hole. What were the chances or my > partner realising at the same time that I couldn't bid the particular > shape I held? Slim, but IMHO non-zero, so I felt uneasy about hiding > my deliberate misbid. > > This was online, so it made life easy, I just told opps privately that > I didn't have a bid to cover that particular hand shape, and so that > instead of guaranteeing three cards in the bid suit, I might have had > to bid a doubleton with one specific shape. Was it telling them my > hand? Probably, but since I was only telling them that I could hold > 4-2-2-5 as well as the agreed 4-1-3-5 I didn't feel that I was giving > the opponents an enormous advantage. > > AG : what if you had suddenly discovered that you might have yto bid this way with 4225, but you actually held 4135 ? (not at all impossible, if you tried to visualize the entire scheme of responses to check that your chosen bid is correct, as I often do) Since your answer to their questions may not vary upon your hand, you'll have to tell them that it might also be 4225, "obviously" suggesting them that it's the case, which may (and will) be considered as an attempt to mislead them. There is something wrong in this. Soggestions are welcome. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 14 11:27:48 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:27:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <4DF5BEEC.5020604@skynet.be> References: <4DF5BEEC.5020604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DF72994.4030406@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/06/2011 9:40, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > richard willey wrote: >> Hi All >> >> I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge bulletin >> board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions regarding the Laws, >> adjustments, and the like. >> >> Assume the following: >> >> E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an >> asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in their >> bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. >> >> East chooses to bid<> and the partnership eventually lands >> in a game contract with East declaring. >> >> During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the >> ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He >> does not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid >> with a hand than does not match said description. >> >> East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the >> defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had additional >> information there was a significant chance that they would chose another >> line of defense. >> >> >> Question for the peanut gallery: >> >> When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he legally >> required to disclose? >> >> * The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand >> * The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this >> hand plus information about this (new) hand type. >> * Something else >> > The opponents are entitled to all the information that is available to > the pair in question. Of course, this is usually far too much to be > saying at the table. In this case, the opponents are entitled to the > meaning of all the responses that were available to the player. And that > includes the conclusion that there is a hole in that structure. The > opponents are not required to make the deduction that there is a hole > for themselves, that should be explained to them. It is possible that a > hole remains in the system, but then the escape mechanism for the hole > should be explained. No-one will ever be able to tell whether the pair > had discovered the hole and the escape mechanism before this hand came > up or afterwards. > > An example: Playing 2-over-1, the 4-5-2-2 distribution (low point range) > is impossible to bid after 1H-1NT. Standard is that 2H shows 6 cards and > 2C/D shows 3. A pair that has talked about this hole and decided to bid > 2H and should explain 2H as "6 cards or 4-5-2-2". A pair that decides to > bid 2C should explain it as "3 cards or 4-5-2-2". But a pair that has > not talked about it will also bid something, and the opponents are > entitled to the same information, since the pair cannot prove they have > not talked about it. > AG : apart from the fact that it's unusual to ask the defendant to find the elements of proof (except perhaps in the US), I have a problem with this specific case. Once, I decided to pass a 4522 12-count to avoid the rebid problem. According to your interpretation, it means that my partner must alert when I pass, and explain that I might have a 4522 12-count. I think this goes too far, as it is more harmful than helpful (just consider the reaction of most people when you alert a 1st seat pass). Of course, our convention card says something about occasionally passing on 12. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 14 11:34:29 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:34:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> References: <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DF72B25.9040005@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/06/2011 10:56, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:42 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure requirements >> >> >>> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: >>>> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand >>>> plus >>>> information about this (new) hand type. >>>> >>>> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit >>>> or >>>> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end >>>> of >>>> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully >>>> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the >>>> time >>>> the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** >>>> >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> bill >>>> >>> While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence >>> whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the >>> above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact decide >>> upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the >>> opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk >>> after the fact? >>> >> So at the table, with no further information, you rule that on the balance >> of probability East has lied? >> > No, surely we both know how to explain to East that we rule against him > because he does exactly the same as someone who might be dishonest. And > we can easily say to him that since he made the bid, there must be some > reason for it - and his opponents are entitled to know what that reason > is, even if he does not know it himself. > > On saturday, a player bid 1Sp over partner's 1Di on Jxx xx Kxxxx Xxx (I > don't remember which club honour). He said he'd never done so before, > but told me he felt too strong for 3D and too weak for 2D. So I ruled > that this was systemic, and then ruled against his opponent, stating he > would not have lead differently if the explanation of 1Sp had been "99% > of the time this is a 4-card suit". > > I feel that the 1Sp bidder, although I believe him when he said he had > never done this before, could not prove that he had not discussed such a > possibility with partner. > AG : curiously, I would be harsher in this case. The 1M response on 3 cards in such a case has become rather popular, so the player would find it difficult to claim that he invented it on the spur of the moment. This particular 'hole' is too obvious to have gone unnoticed. BTW, if he just wanted to be constructive, he could have answered 1NT without lying, so his motives might have been different. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jun 14 11:35:53 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:35:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <201106131037.p5DAbDo9017216@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> <201106131037.p5DAbDo9017216@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4DF72B79.30805@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/06/2011 12:36, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > At 06:56 PM 13/06/2011, you wrote: >> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:42 PM >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure requirements >>> >>> >>>> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: >>>>> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand >>>>> plus >>>>> information about this (new) hand type. >>>>> >>>>> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit >>>>> or >>>>> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end >>>>> of >>>>> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully >>>>> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the >>>>> time >>>>> the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> >>>>> bill >>>>> >>>> While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence >>>> whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the >>>> above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact decide >>>> upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the >>>> opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk >>>> after the fact? >>>> >>> So at the table, with no further information, you rule that on the balance >>> of probability East has lied? >>> >> No, surely we both know how to explain to East that we rule against him >> because he does exactly the same as someone who might be dishonest. And >> we can easily say to him that since he made the bid, there must be some >> reason for it - and his opponents are entitled to know what that reason >> is, even if he does not know it himself. >> >> On saturday, a player bid 1Sp over partner's 1Di on Jxx xx Kxxxx Xxx (I >> don't remember which club honour). He said he'd never done so before, >> but told me he felt too strong for 3D and too weak for 2D. So I ruled >> that this was systemic, and then ruled against his opponent, stating he >> would not have lead differently if the explanation of 1Sp had been "99% >> of the time this is a 4-card suit". >> >> I feel that the 1Sp bidder, although I believe him when he said he had >> never done this before, could not prove that he had not discussed such a >> possibility with partner. >> >>> cheers >>> >>> bill >>> > I'm not playing bridge in Belgium then (or US). If its my turn > to bid, I bid. If I have spades I bid them, if I don't have spades > then I bid them. Isn't this general bridge knowledge? > Problem is, in this case you don't have them. So, this general bridge knowledge isn't enough to understand your bid. From blml at arcor.de Tue Jun 14 12:03:43 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:03:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <4DF72B79.30805@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DF72B79.30805@ulb.ac.be> <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> <201106131037.p5DAbDo9017216@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <331724243.189055.1308045823442.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 13/06/2011 12:36, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : > > At 06:56 PM 13/06/2011, you wrote: > >> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Herman De Wael" > >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:42 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure requirements > >>> > >>> > >>>> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: > >>>>> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this > hand > >>>>> plus > >>>>> information about this (new) hand type. > >>>>> > >>>>> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, > explicit > >>>>> or > >>>>> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the > end > >>>>> of > >>>>> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully > >>>>> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at > the > >>>>> time > >>>>> the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> cheers > >>>>> > >>>>> bill > >>>>> > >>>> While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence > >>>> whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the > >>>> above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact > decide > >>>> upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the > >>>> opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk > >>>> after the fact? > >>>> > >>> So at the table, with no further information, you rule that on the > balance > >>> of probability East has lied? > >>> > >> No, surely we both know how to explain to East that we rule against him > >> because he does exactly the same as someone who might be dishonest. And > >> we can easily say to him that since he made the bid, there must be some > >> reason for it - and his opponents are entitled to know what that reason > >> is, even if he does not know it himself. > >> > >> On saturday, a player bid 1Sp over partner's 1Di on Jxx xx Kxxxx Xxx (I > >> don't remember which club honour). He said he'd never done so before, > >> but told me he felt too strong for 3D and too weak for 2D. So I ruled > >> that this was systemic, and then ruled against his opponent, stating he > >> would not have lead differently if the explanation of 1Sp had been "99% > >> of the time this is a 4-card suit". > >> > >> I feel that the 1Sp bidder, although I believe him when he said he had > >> never done this before, could not prove that he had not discussed such a > >> possibility with partner. > >> > >>> cheers > >>> > >>> bill > >>> > > I'm not playing bridge in Belgium then (or US). If its my turn > > to bid, I bid. If I have spades I bid them, if I don't have spades > > then I bid them. Isn't this general bridge knowledge? > > > Problem is, in this case you don't have them. So, this general bridge > knowledge isn't enough to understand your bid. I think you might have misunderstood. Tony, among other things, wrote "if I don't have spades then I bid them." Spades are the boss suit, sometimes you have to bid them even if you don't have them. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 00:01:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:01:01 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DF72994.4030406@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael >>..... >>But a pair that has not talked about it will also bid >>something, and the opponents are entitled to the same >>information, since the pair cannot prove they have >>not talked about it. Alain Gottcheiner >AG : apart from the fact that it's unusual to ask the >defendant to find the elements of proof (except >perhaps in the US), >..... Richard Hills I go beyond Alain's judgement of Herman's hypothetical ruling as "unusual". The word "prove" or alternatively the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" (the criminal criterion) does not appear in Law 85. Instead Law 85A1 contains the phrase "balance of probabilities" (the civil criterion). Ergo, my judgement of Herman's hypothetical ruling is that it is unLawful. In my opinion Law 85 is based upon the philosophy that it is better for the frequent honest player to gain justice than it is for the rare cheat to be punished 100% of the time. Even if a rare cheat prospers from a particular Law 85 ruling, in the long run the rare cheat will go to the well too often. Eventually the rare cheat will receive a ten year ban from Duplicate Bridge by a Disciplinary Committee. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110614/bdfe6536/attachment.html From info at honorsbridgeclub.org Tue Jun 14 21:24:23 2011 From: info at honorsbridgeclub.org (Honors Bridge Club) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:24:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 17.D.3 Message-ID: <4DF7B567.30609@honorsbridgeclub.org> We would like to know how to handle the following situation: A player picks up the cards from the wrong board and as dealer opens 2C (Strong, Artificial and Forcing). Before anything else happens the mistake is discovered and the 2C bid is canceled and the auction continues normally on this board with the correct hand. On the next board that player will be last in rotation. Our questions: A. If the next board is against the same opponents, is the fact that that player holds a 2C opening authorized information for them? B. What adjustment would you give if it is authorized information and they now psych a bid to avoid playing the board? C. What adjustment would you give if it's unauthorized information or if the next board is against different opponents (for whom it's clearly unauthorized information), but they notice the commotion and the director's presence to monitor the auction and deduce what happened and also Psych a bid? -- 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 6208 (20110614) __________ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 00:32:13 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:32:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DF724B7.4080600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Arthur James Balfour, British Prime Minister 1902-1905 "I make it a rule never to stare at people when they are in obvious distress." [on being asked what he thought of the behaviour of the German delegation at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles] Alain Gottcheiner >..... >"obviously" suggesting to them that it's the case, which may >(and will) be considered as an attempt to mislead them. > >There is something wrong in this. Suggestions are welcome. Richard Hills Nothing wrong with this. I suggest this counter-example. Behind screens you give an accurate description to your screen-mate of the pre-existing mutual explicit partnership understanding of the call you have just made. However, your call was a gross psyche. And obviously your gross psyche may (and will) be considered as an attempt to mislead them. What's the problem with a legal call being dissonant with a legal explanation? Law 75C ..... East-West did receive an accurate description of the North- South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. ..... Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110614/130899b9/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jun 15 02:10:00 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 20:10:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 17.D.3 In-Reply-To: <4DF7B567.30609@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <4DF7B567.30609@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: For purposes of this question, I will assume that South picked up the wrong cards. The 2C opening by a player with the wrong cards is an infraction. Law 16D says that the 2C opening is unauthorized information to the offenders and authorized information to the non-offenders. However, in response to your question B, I would not allow a player to make an abnormal call in order to get average-plus on a board, for the same reason that we do not encourage double shots. If East has a hand which is not suitable for a psyche, or E-W are vulnerable, then I would give E-W average-minus for deliberately creating a situation in which an artificial score is necessary. (An alternative would be to award E-W average-plus, but with a procedural penalty for creating an artifical score) If the psyche by East is a reasonable action, or if East has a non-psyche which is a reasonable bid, then E-W have done nothing wrong and I have to award average-plus to E-W. Similarly, if pass by North is a logical alternative and he bids, then in addition to giving N-S average-minus, I may impose a procedural penalty on North for making a bid suggested by UI. And as for Question C, Law 16C requires the new E-W to notify the TD that they have UI from a third party. There is no clear standard for acceptable bids after UI from a third party, so the standard I would apply is that they may make any normal calls, and if the UI may have influenced the final result, the TD should then impose an adjusted score. Thus, uf E-W make an abnormal call suggested by the UI, that is an infraction, so I would rule average-minus for E-W, average-plus for N-S, and add a procedural penalty to E-W (and if they didn't notify the TD, a stronger procedural penalty). And again, if they take a reasonable action, E-W have done nothing wrong and receive average-plus. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Honors Bridge Club" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 3:24 PM Subject: [BLML] Law 17.D.3 > We would like to know how to handle the following situation: > A player picks up the cards from the wrong board and as dealer opens 2C > (Strong, Artificial and Forcing). > Before anything else happens the mistake is discovered and the 2C bid is > canceled and the auction continues normally on this board with the > correct hand. > On the next board that player will be last in rotation. > Our questions: > A. If the next board is against the same opponents, is the fact that > that player holds a 2C opening authorized information for them? > B. What adjustment would you give if it is authorized information and > they now psych a bid to avoid playing the board? > C. What adjustment would you give if it's unauthorized information or if > the next board is against different opponents (for whom it's clearly > unauthorized information), but they notice the commotion and the > director's presence to monitor the auction and deduce what happened and > also Psych a bid? > > -- > 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 6208 (20110614) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 04:05:56 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:05:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 17.D.3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Grabiner >..... >However, in response to your question B, I would not allow >a player to make an abnormal call in order to get average- >plus on a board, for the same reason that we do not >encourage double shots. Richard Hills The anti-double shot Law 12C1(b) only applies if the non- offending side is damaged. In the case under discussion the non-offending side is undamaged, due to their entitlement to an Ave+ artificial score. David Grabiner >If East has a hand which is not suitable for a psyche, or >E-W are vulnerable, then I would give E-W average-minus >for deliberately creating a situation in which an >artificial score is necessary. >..... 2007 Law 15C, final sentence "The Director may award a procedural penalty (and an adjusted score) if of the opinion that there has been a purposeful attempt by either side to preclude normal play of the board." Richard Hills No doubt the 2007 Drafting Committee had a blind spot when it failed to clone the final sentence of Law 15C as also the final sentence of Law 17D3. But, in my opinion, until this error is patched in 2018, a Director must rule according to the Lawbook as it stands. So, in my opinion, David Grabiner is advocating an unLawful ruling on the basis of what the Lawbook _ought_ to state, not on the basis of what the Lawbook _does_ state. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110615/590fe596/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 15 05:52:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:52:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Law 17.D.3 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Monty Python and the Holy Grail Guard: Where'd you get the coconuts? Arthur: We found them. Guard: Found them? In Mercia?! The coconut's tropical! Arthur: What do you mean? Guard: Well, Mercia's a temperate zone! Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun, and the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land. Guard: ... Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate? David Grabiner >..... >(An alternative would be to award E-W average-plus, but with >a procedural penalty for creating an artificial score) >..... Richard Hills Is David suggesting that for a single action a fully non- offending side can migrate to also being an offending side? Law 12C2(a) ..... average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant ***in no way at fault***. Richard Hills A procedural penalty can only be awarded to an offender. Law 90A The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any ***offence*** ..... Richard Hills So the alternative suggested by David Grabiner fails the ancient Euclidean reductio ad absurdum test. Unless David has adopted a theory once propounded by another David, David Stevenson, that a pure-as-driven-snow non- offending side may nevertheless be hit with a procedural penalty if the Director does not like the pure-as-driven-snow non-offending side's non-infracting action (redefined as a paradoxical non-infracting offence). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110615/4cca399a/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jun 15 09:38:50 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:38:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Law 17.D.3 In-Reply-To: <4DF7B567.30609@honorsbridgeclub.org> References: <4DF7B567.30609@honorsbridgeclub.org> Message-ID: <4DF8618A.8050109@meteo.fr> Honors Bridge Club a ?crit : > We would like to know how to handle the following situation: > A player picks up the cards from the wrong board and as dealer opens 2C > (Strong, Artificial and Forcing). > Before anything else happens the mistake is discovered and the 2C bid is > canceled and the auction continues normally on this board with the > correct hand. > On the next board that player will be last in rotation. > Our questions: > A. If the next board is against the same opponents, is the fact that > that player holds a 2C opening authorized information for them? yes > B. What adjustment would you give if it is authorized information and > they now psych a bid to avoid playing the board? i think we are not in this situation which could only occur if rho were dealer. here south opened 2C out of rotation at lho's turn and north is definitely silenced. i admit not to be on firm ground in my interpretation of L17D3 (is "repeats his call" as soon as possible? or awaiting his own turn?) but i don't see why L17D3 and L31B would not adjudicate the same infraction the same way. jpr > C. What adjustment would you give if it's unauthorized information or if > the next board is against different opponents (for whom it's clearly > unauthorized information), but they notice the commotion and the > director's presence to monitor the auction and deduce what happened and > also Psych a bid? > -- _______________________________________________ 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jun 15 10:58:40 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:58:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 8th Sep 2009, item 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <360EF933-6A58-4065-AF36-7830B8DBCFC8@btinternet.com> It's not clear to me in what way you think this answers Vitold's question. Gordon Rainsford On 14 Jun 2011, at 03:32, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Vitold Brushtunov > > >..... > >is there any regulation, recommendation or any formulated > >position when TD's decision should be announced to these players > >..... > > WBF LC minutes 8th Sep 2009, item 4 > > The committee considered a situation where there had been a > request for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). > This had created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was > of the view that the Director should provide a ruling before > bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific > and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to > the appeals committee. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110615/31492e50/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 15 11:36:51 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:36:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <331724243.189055.1308045823442.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> References: <4DF72B79.30805@ulb.ac.be> <4DF5BF7E.1040800@skynet.be> <40C9216C63C14CF78DAE0C0F31CA054E@acer> <4DF5D0BB.50609@skynet.be> <201106131037.p5DAbDo9017216@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> <331724243.189055.1308045823442.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail14.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DF87D33.50403@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/06/2011 12:03, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 13/06/2011 12:36, Tony Musgrove a ?crit : >>> At 06:56 PM 13/06/2011, you wrote: >>>> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:42 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure requirements >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Bill& Helen Kemp wrote: >>>>>>> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this >> hand >>>>>>> plus >>>>>>> information about this (new) hand type. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, >> explicit >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the >> end >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully >>>>>>> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at >> the >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> the bid<> was made. NS are trying it on** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bill >>>>>>> >>>>>> While Bill is correct in theory, in practice there will be no evidence >>>>>> whatsoever that will enable the Director to rule conclusively that the >>>>>> above is the full truth - who is to say the pair did not in fact >> decide >>>>>> upon the particular bid they chose and simply failed to tell the >>>>>> opponents at the table, and come up with the "hole in the system" talk >>>>>> after the fact? >>>>>> >>>>> So at the table, with no further information, you rule that on the >> balance >>>>> of probability East has lied? >>>>> >>>> No, surely we both know how to explain to East that we rule against him >>>> because he does exactly the same as someone who might be dishonest. And >>>> we can easily say to him that since he made the bid, there must be some >>>> reason for it - and his opponents are entitled to know what that reason >>>> is, even if he does not know it himself. >>>> >>>> On saturday, a player bid 1Sp over partner's 1Di on Jxx xx Kxxxx Xxx (I >>>> don't remember which club honour). He said he'd never done so before, >>>> but told me he felt too strong for 3D and too weak for 2D. So I ruled >>>> that this was systemic, and then ruled against his opponent, stating he >>>> would not have lead differently if the explanation of 1Sp had been "99% >>>> of the time this is a 4-card suit". >>>> >>>> I feel that the 1Sp bidder, although I believe him when he said he had >>>> never done this before, could not prove that he had not discussed such a >>>> possibility with partner. >>>> >>>>> cheers >>>>> >>>>> bill >>>>> >>> I'm not playing bridge in Belgium then (or US). If its my turn >>> to bid, I bid. If I have spades I bid them, if I don't have spades >>> then I bid them. Isn't this general bridge knowledge? >>> >> Problem is, in this case you don't have them. So, this general bridge >> knowledge isn't enough to understand your bid. > I think you might have misunderstood. > Tony, among other things, wrote > "if I don't have spades then I bid them." > > Spades are the boss suit, sometimes you have to bid them > even if you don't have them. > AG : OK then. In this case, I answer : "no , it isn't general bridge knowledge, and BTW the 'floating spade' is a restricted convention" From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 11:35:45 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 05:35:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <4DF724B7.4080600@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DF4FC9E.5000109@gmail.com> <4DF724B7.4080600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DF87CF1.1050800@gmail.com> On 06/14/2011 05:07 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 12/06/2011 19:51, Brian a ?crit : >> On 06/12/2011 06:47 AM, richard willey wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge bulletin >>> board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions regarding the Laws, >>> adjustments, and the like. >>> >>> Assume the following: >>> >>> E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an >>> asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in >>> their bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his >>> hand. >>> >>> East chooses to bid<> and the partnership eventually lands >>> in a game contract with East declaring. >>> >>> During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about the >>> ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the bid. He >>> does not provide any information that indicates that he made this bid >>> with a hand than does not match said description. >>> >>> East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the >>> defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had >>> additional information there was a significant chance that they would >>> chose another line of defense. >>> >>> >>> Question for the peanut gallery: >>> >>> When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he >>> legally required to disclose? >>> >>> * The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand >>> * The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered >>> this hand plus information about this (new) hand type. >>> * Something else >>> >> Having seen Bill's reply, I want to differ just slightly from it. I'm >> sure Bill is technically correct as the Laws go, but Richard is aware >> of a minor hole which my partner and I recently found in a scheme of >> Two Level openers that Richard (more or less?) designed. We found one >> particular hand shape and range which wasn't covered. >> >> The fix was fairly obvious, and the problem I have is that my partner, >> presented with the same hand, would *undoubtedly* have bent the same >> response as I did to cover the hole. What were the chances or my >> partner realising at the same time that I couldn't bid the particular >> shape I held? Slim, but IMHO non-zero, so I felt uneasy about hiding >> my deliberate misbid. >> >> This was online, so it made life easy, I just told opps privately that >> I didn't have a bid to cover that particular hand shape, and so that >> instead of guaranteeing three cards in the bid suit, I might have had >> to bid a doubleton with one specific shape. Was it telling them my >> hand? Probably, but since I was only telling them that I could hold >> 4-2-2-5 as well as the agreed 4-1-3-5 I didn't feel that I was giving >> the opponents an enormous advantage. >> >> > AG : what if you had suddenly discovered that you might have yto bid > this way with 4225, but you actually held 4135 ? (not at all > impossible, if you tried to visualize the entire scheme of responses > to check that your chosen bid is correct, as I often do) > > Since your answer to their questions may not vary upon your hand, > you'll have to tell them that it might also be 4225, "obviously" > suggesting them that it's the case, which may (and will) be considered > as an attempt to mislead them. > > There is something wrong in this. Soggestions are welcome. > IMO, there has to be some way out of this. Had the above happened, and I realised the 3D response would have to be made on a doubleton diamond while I actually held 4135, then I'd have let the alert stand as is and then sorted the matter with my partner at the end of the hand. If opponents are going to claim that I should have told them that during the course of the hand, I'd point out that the information would very likely have misled them. If they wanted to pursue the matter then, being as it was online, I think it would be time for new opponents. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 15 11:44:38 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:44:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DF87F06.6040003@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/06/2011 0:32, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Arthur James Balfour, British Prime Minister 1902-1905 > > "I make it a rule never to stare at people when they are in > obvious distress." > [on being asked what he thought of the behaviour of the > German delegation at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles] > > Alain Gottcheiner > > >..... > >"obviously" suggesting to them that it's the case, which may > >(and will) be considered as an attempt to mislead them. > > > >There is something wrong in this. Suggestions are welcome. > > Richard Hills > > Nothing wrong with this. > > I suggest this counter-example. Behind screens you give an > accurate description to your screen-mate of the pre-existing > mutual explicit partnership understanding of the call you > have just made. However, your call was a gross psyche. And > obviously your gross psyche may (and will) be considered as > an attempt to mislead them. > > What's the problem with a legal call being dissonant with a > legal explanation? > AG : the problem is that 'considering the balance of probabilities' many TDs will chastise you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110615/048fe072/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Jun 15 11:16:11 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:16:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F6C1435-D8D6-45D7-8499-C1EB336958B8@btinternet.com> On 12 Jun 2011, at 11:47, richard willey wrote: > Hi All > I'm involved in a somewhat rancorous discussion on a bridge > bulletin board. I'd like to validate some of my assumptions > regarding the Laws, adjustments, and the like. > > Assume the following: > > E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made > an asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole > in their bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes > his hand. > > East chooses to bid <> and the partnership eventually > lands in a game contract with East declaring. > > During the play of the hand, one of the defenders inquires about > the ?critical? bid. East provides the systemic definition of the > bid. He does not provide any information that indicates that he > made this bid with a hand than does not match said description. > > East's failure to disclose this information proves harmful to the > defense. They fail to set the contract. If the defenders had > additional information there was a significant chance that they > would chose another line of defense. > L20F1: ...He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Gordon Rainsford From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 16 02:25:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:25:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] WBF LC minutes 8th Sep 2009, item 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <360EF933-6A58-4065-AF36-7830B8DBCFC8@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Vitold Brushtunov >>..... >>is there any regulation, recommendation or any formulated >>position when TD's decision should be announced to these players >>..... WBF LC minutes 8th Sep 2009, item 4 The committee considered a situation where there had been a request for a ruling only just within the time limit (Law 92B). This had created a difficulty for the Director. The committee was of the view that the Director should provide a ruling before bringing it to the appeals committee. Laws 84 and 85 are specific and take priority over any attempt to take the matter directly to the appeals committee. Gordon Rainsford >It's not clear to me in what way you [Richard Hills] think this >answers Vitold's question. Richard Hills The "formulated position" of the WBF LC on the "when" of a "TD's decision" is that it must be "announced to these players" before the expiration of the Law 92B time limit. Law 92B - Right to Appeal - 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. EBU White Book, clause 92.1, example of different time periods The Merseyside Bridge League has a number of matches played privately where there is no TD available. So, while the correction period for scoring ends 30 minutes after the scores have been agreed between the captains, the correction period for rulings ends 24 hours later, and the correction period for appeals 24 hours after that. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110616/6ff4030c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 16 02:49:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:49:14 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DF87F06.6040003@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills >>..... >>What's the problem with a legal call being dissonant with a >>legal explanation? >>..... Alain Gottcheiner >AG : the problem is that 'considering the balance of >probabilities' many TDs will chastise you. Richard Hills One ACBL Appeals Committee, to its discredit, mentioned as an obiter dictum that it would have been preferable for the appellant to save time by lying about his mutual partnership understanding, rather than have his truthful explanation be deemed a lie by the Director and Appeals Committee (due to a lack of written documentation). In times past I took my 30-odd pages of system notes to non- Canberra national championships. I no longer bother doing so, since the new 2007 Law 85A1 refers to "weight of evidence", NOT "weight of written evidence", and all senior Aussie Directors are well aware of the weightiness of the Ali-Hills partnership (users of an almost unchanged system for two millennia, and with a history of veracity in comprehensive explanations of positive and negative inferences). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110616/8d9c30e4/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 16:56:34 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:56:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: <9F6C1435-D8D6-45D7-8499-C1EB336958B8@btinternet.com> References: <9F6C1435-D8D6-45D7-8499-C1EB336958B8@btinternet.com> Message-ID: For anyone interested in more information, the complete thread is available at http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44868-icelandic-pairs-2011/ -- 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/20110617/545e310b/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Jun 18 07:28:14 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:28:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] request Message-ID: <4DFC376E.5000300@aol.com> Ahoj Henk! I have two addresses for blml and never know which to use so I shall send this message to both. I recommended blml to a friend and gave him both addresses. He has tried to join but somehow it hasn't functioned. (I don't know why.) He has requested that I try to arrange for his membership. So am writing to you. His name is Manfred Schuhmann and his email address (for blml) is: . He would like to be put on the blml mailing list under this email address. Is it possible? If there are problems would you be so kind as to inform me? I am sending this email to both of the blml addresses I have so you may receive it twice. Thanks, JE (Jeff Easterson) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jun 18 10:11:10 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:11:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Weighted scores In-Reply-To: <4D513CAE.6030805@skynet.be> References: <201102080851.p188oxqY024634@mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au> <4D50F878.1030902@skynet.be> <1010633294.41549.1297160543402.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail15.arcor-online.net> <4D513CAE.6030805@skynet.be> Message-ID: <21063160.426341308384670170.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+From Poznan. Surely if we search hard enough someone will be found who disagrees? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ........................................................ >----Original Message---- >From: Hermandw at skynet.be >Date: 08/02/2011 12:53 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Weighted scores > >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 >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Sat Jun 18 13:17:48 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:17:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements Message-ID: <955619566.547108.1308395868948.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard willey wrote: > For anyone interested in more information, the complete thread is available > at > > http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44868-icelandic-pairs-2011/ I agree with the AC's reasoning, but I would have given a much higher percentage to 4S going down. In addition to what the ACs said, it seems to me that bidding 3H on that East hand was the best bid in E/W's system for the hand E held. I consider this to be pretty straightforward MI. Worded differently, if opponents are informed that a certain bid promises three card support, but there actually exist hands where raising on a doubleton is the best bid, then opponents were misinformed. I also, from the writeup, do not believe that it has never happened before that E/W considered bidding an invitational 3H on a doubleton. 5224 and 5242, 18-19, no stopper in the doubleton minor are not extreme rare distributions. With opener's 2NT rebid being non-forcing, this experienced pair must have encountered and discussed various such problem hands before. If not in exactly this situation, then in similar situations. Thomas From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Sun Jun 19 05:21:17 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 05:21:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] request In-Reply-To: <4DFC376E.5000300@aol.com> References: <4DFC376E.5000300@aol.com> Message-ID: <4DFD6B2D.2000804@gmail.com> Jeff, He has been added to the list. Henk > Ahoj Henk! I have two addresses for blml and never know which to use so > I shall send this message to both. > I recommended blml to a friend and gave him both addresses. He has > tried to join but somehow it hasn't functioned. (I don't know why.) He > has requested that I try to arrange for his membership. So am writing > to you. His name is Manfred Schuhmann and his email address (for blml) > is: . He would like to be put on the blml > mailing list under this email address. Is it possible? If there are > problems would you be so kind as to inform me? > > I am sending this email to both of the blml addresses I have so you may > receive it twice. > > Thanks, JE (Jeff Easterson) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jun 19 23:37:20 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 17:37:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DFE6C10.4020801@nhcc.net> On 6/12/2011 6:47 AM, richard willey wrote: > E/W is in the middle of a constructive auction. West has just made an > asking bid and East suddenly discovers the existence of a hole in their > bidding system. He has no bid that accurately describes his hand. I'm late coming in here, but I think Herman's example (holding 4=5=2=2 after 1H-1NT) is exactly on target. A correct explanation of, say, 2H in that situation might be something like "promises 6 cards, but we've never discussed what to do with 4522, so I suppose he might hold that." Merely "promises 6 cards" with no addition would be MI. It's not up to the opponents to figure out all the nuances of anyone's bidding system. The concept of "implicit agreement" seems relevant. Whether EW had prior knowledge of the hole in their system seems irrelevant to me. There is in principle some fully correct explanation, and not giving it is MI regardless of the reason. (A common reason is someone having forgotten, but the actual reason doesn't matter.) I've now had a look at the thread Richard pointed us to, > http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44868-icelandic-pairs-2011/ and I'm astonished at some of the contrary opinions there. Perhaps all this is less clear than it used to be now that "fully and freely available" has been deleted, but I think there's enough left in L40B6a to justify my opinion. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 20 00:35:12 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:35:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Succinctness versus clarity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jeff Rubens, Edgar Kaplan Remembered, February 1998 >>>..... >>>His exactness in diction was matched by a pedantic >>>interest in grammar. In another direction, Edgar >>>had a knack for writing sentences that would mean >>>quite different things to different people. >>>..... Queensland CTD Reg Busch, Australian Directors' Bulletin, November 1998 >>..... >>One comment I saw recently from a European Director >>would be good advice. To paraphrase: in drafting >>the Laws, the Committee should not concern itself >>with elegance or conciseness. It should use as many >>words as necessary to make its meaning clear. >>..... Richard Hills, January 2005 >Edgar's exact diction and pedantic grammar was >highly desirable for a work of literature, but less >so for an instruction manual for TDs (which is the >primary purpose of the Laws). And a knack for >writing sentences that would mean quite different >things to different people is a fatal flaw in an >instruction manual. Richard Hills, June 2011 As an example of succinctness which means quite different things to different people would be the Law 70C2 phrase "at all likely", which is interpreted in varying ways according to the traditions and customs of varying Regulating Authorities. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110619/1d3a3782/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 20 01:26:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Disclosure requirements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DFE6C10.4020801@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner >..... >It's not up to the opponents to figure out all the >nuances of anyone's bidding system. >..... Richard Hills Yes and No. Yes, I am a believer in players carefully disclosing negative inferences "where these are matters of partnership understanding" (Law 20F1). No, if one or both partners have not _yet_ figured out the hole in their system, then that hole cannot _yet_ be described as a partnership understanding. Steve Willner >..... >I think there's enough left in L40B6a to justify my >opinion. Richard Hills Yes and No. Yes, Law 40B6(a) requires disclosure of an understanding a partnership _does_ have now. No, Law 40B6(a) does not require disclosure of a non-existent understanding a logical partnership logically _should_ have now. Players are often illogical. For example -> A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) [big snip] Even though most of our players stick to Texas at the four level, there is always the mnemonic factor and human frailty to contend with. A remedy was found by a group of players in Johannesburg. It came to the notice of two of our leading lights after a typical accident in a pairs tournament. West opened 1NT and passed his partner's bid of four hearts. North-South duly scored 300; elsewhere a contract of four spades gave 620 or 650 to East-West. "Texas is grand," said East, "but it's becoming rather expensive." One of the opponents chipped in: "We had the same problem until we switched to 'unforgettable Texas', you know, the South African version." This is the idea. A jump to four hearts is apt to sound like an everyday natural bid. A response of four clubs or four diamonds is far less familiar and the most scatter-brained partner will wake up to the fact that he is being asked to bid four hearts or four spades. A few days later, after deciding to adopt this variation, our two experts picked up the following in a Gold Cup match: Dealer West: Both vulnerable WEST...................EAST KT9....................6 K943...................QJT85 AK82...................4 AT.....................K98742 I believe in giving my readers some work to do, so you are asked to account for this sequence: WEST...................EAST 1NT....................4C 4S.....................5C 5NT....................6C 6NT....................Pass The first part is easy - East bid four clubs because he felt that four hearts, played by his partner, would be an ideal contract. But now another son of Texas appears on the scene, in the person of Mr John Gerber, of Houston. You are bound to have heard of his convention, which is used by many players. For example, West opens 2NT and East's hand is like: KQJ965 8 3 KQ952 East is solely concerned with the number of aces in his partner's hand. The bid that meets the case is a Gerber four clubs. This calls on West to declarer his ace content in the Blackwood manner: four diamonds denies an ace, four hearts shows one ace, and so on. On the next round, should East be concerned with kings, he follows up with five clubs. By now, if you review the actual sequence, light will dawn. Our experts had overlooked a clash of conventions when they switched to South African Texas. From West's angle, four clubs was Gerber; so he showed his two aces. His partner's agonised attempt to find a resting place sounded like a further ask for kings; so he showed his three kings. The final contract went three down. The rival team stopped at five hearts, just made. Those who follow the Texas flag have something in common with the heroes of the Alamo. In most cases, as you will note, they die with their bidding boots on. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110619/44fa448e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 20 01:38:45 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:38:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:53:10 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> ..... >> If she said "no agreement" or something like that, I >> would say "bullshit" (or something like that), because >> she wouldn't have made the bid if she thought there was >> no agreement. >> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Balderdash! (or something like that). When I know that > my cards do not fit any prior partnership understanding, > I then intentionally choose an undiscussed call. Maybe I > will be lucky when pard guesses right, maybe I will be > unlucky when pard guesses wrong. But much better than > the certain bad luck that would follow a misdescriptive > call which is a prior partnership understanding. As director, I am going to focus on your phrase "pard guesses right". What is it that you hope partner guesses right? I ask your partner to leave the table and ask you to explain what it is you hope your partner guesses right. I am guessing you will do that. People always do. If you do not, I will next explain my concerns. I will first worry that your partner has a much better chance of guessing right than the opponents. That's going to hold for many partnerships, but especially if you are playing with a long-time partner and playing a system unfamiliar to your opponents. Then I am going to focus on the fact that there seems to be a hole in your system -- a hand that you cannot describe. I believe the opponents are entitled to the inferences from the bids not made. Which means they are entitled to know about the holes in your system (although if you have more than one hole, they do not deserve to know which hole you are trying to avoid). The opponents actually have the right to outguess your partner, right? Then I am going to explain that I almost surely going to rule mistaken explanation and that it is in your best interest to do the right thing and tell your opps what you hope your partner is going to guess right. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 20 02:09:56 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:09:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements (b) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Robert Frick: > >> ..... >> #1. I ask my partner: Do you want to play Bergen over a >> takeout double? He says no. We have an agreement and a >> meeting of minds. But a month later he does Bergen over >> a takeout double and expects me to figure it out. No >> meeting of minds. Has the agreement disappeared? >> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > Not yet. A unilateral call by one partner is not a > mutual understanding of both partners, so when partner > made the call it was a legal unilateral variation under > Law 40A3. However, ***after*** the end of the deal Bob > and partner may well come to a new meeting of minds to > switch to playing Bergen over a takeout double. > > What's the problem? It was a pair of problems that was hard to solve and you solved one of them and snipped the other. The general problem is, when people agree on a convention name only, what is their agreement/understanding for legal purposes. You suggested, and still seem to be advocating, what Jerry called a meeting of the minds answer. One serious difficulty is deciding if it is a meeting of the minds when the agreement is made, or when the bid is made. You are giving the answer "when the agreement is made." That leads to a really ugly answer for this scenario: We agree to play Bergen Raises. I have no idea what they are. So we really have no agreement/understanding using the meeting of minds approach. During the subsequent week, I learn Bergen Raises, do we still have no agreement? Of course, that has a simple resolution, that the agreement is determined by the meeting of the minds when the bid is made. This produces the ugly answer to Problem #1. Of course, more complicated positions are possible, but I think they will lack intuitive plausibility and not be memorable. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 20 02:31:07 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:31:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] partnership agreements (c) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by > a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or > ***implicitly through mutual experience or awareness*** > of the players." > > So if Bob is playing with a new partner from his club, > and if they forget to explicitly discuss Stayman, but if > the norm at Bob's club is Double-Barrelled Stayman, then > Bob and new partner have a mutual experience implicit > partnership understanding to use the Double-Barrelled > Stayman convention. Very unlikely to be that simple. You are saying that if both my partner and I know that 2/3 of the players at our club play Flannery, then we are playing an opening 2D bid as meaning Flannery. Yet at least one of us might think that the "unmarked" agreement is weak 2D, which is to say, with no agreement 2D weak is the default. And usually I figure that without discussion, it is dangerous to do either. If someone opens 2D and we have not discussed it, I offer to leave the table and let my partner explain it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 20 06:01:36 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:01:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: Both WEST..........EAST 1NT(1)........4H (2) 4S (3)........5H (4) ? (1) 15-17 (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not any control in clubs (4) First or second round control in hearts, and slam try in spades You, West, hold K432 AK AQJ9 432 What call do you make? What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110620/89e1fbdd/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Mon Jun 20 09:47:09 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:47:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: West > Vul: Both > > WEST..........EAST > 1NT(1)........4H (2) > 4S (3)........5H (4) > ? > > (1) 15-17 > (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some > values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff > (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not > any control in clubs > (4) First or second round control in hearts, > and slam try in spades > > You, West, hold > > K432 > AK > AQJ9 > 432 > > What call do you make? > What's the problem? Partner has made a slam try, and has promised some control in hearts, but not in the minors. The auction is a bit suspicious because partner might have forgotten Texas, or I might have forgotten system, but in case this is an UI problem I'd still consider it an LA to not pass. Myself, I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx won't increase partnership confidence. Thomas From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 10:36:31 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:36:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2011/6/20 Thomas Dehn : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: Both >> >> WEST..........EAST >> 1NT(1)........4H (2) >> 4S (3)........5H (4) >> ? >> >> (1) 15-17 >> (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some >> values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff >> (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not >> any control in clubs >> (4) First or second round control in hearts, >> and slam try in spades >> >> You, West, hold >> >> K432 >> AK >> AQJ9 >> 432 >> >> What call do you make? >> What's the problem? > > Partner has made a slam try, and has promised some control in > hearts, but not in the minors. > > The auction is a bit suspicious because partner might have > forgotten Texas, or I might have forgotten system, > but in case this is an UI problem I'd still consider > it an LA to not pass. > > Myself, ?I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. > That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 > fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx > won't increase partnership confidence. Any partner I know would cuebid 5C, not 5H with that hand. Unless you have an agreement to always cuebid shortness first. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From blml at arcor.de Mon Jun 20 10:44:03 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:44:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1896215068.12550.1308559443554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2011/6/20 Thomas Dehn : > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Matchpoint pairs > >> Dlr: West > >> Vul: Both > >> > >> WEST..........EAST > >> 1NT(1)........4H (2) > >> 4S (3)........5H (4) > >> ? > >> > >> (1) 15-17 > >> (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some > >> values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff > >> (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not > >> any control in clubs > >> (4) First or second round control in hearts, > >> and slam try in spades > >> > >> You, West, hold > >> > >> K432 > >> AK > >> AQJ9 > >> 432 > >> > >> What call do you make? > >> What's the problem? > > > > Partner has made a slam try, and has promised some control in > > hearts, but not in the minors. > > > > The auction is a bit suspicious because partner might have > > forgotten Texas, or I might have forgotten system, > > but in case this is an UI problem I'd still consider > > it an LA to not pass. > > > > Myself, ?I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. > > That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 > > fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx > > won't increase partnership confidence. > > Any partner I know would cuebid 5C, not 5H with that hand. > Unless you have an agreement to always cuebid shortness first. Old style bidding, intending to bid 6C over 5S, to show first round control of hearts and second round control of clubs. If you don't like that example, I can give partner AQxxxxxxx,void,xx,xx (9022 distribution). Thomas From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 10:54:10 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:54:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1896215068.12550.1308559443554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1896215068.12550.1308559443554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: 2011/6/20 Thomas Dehn : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> 2011/6/20 Thomas Dehn : >> > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> Matchpoint pairs >> >> Dlr: West >> >> Vul: Both >> >> >> >> WEST..........EAST >> >> 1NT(1)........4H (2) >> >> 4S (3)........5H (4) >> >> ? >> >> >> >> (1) 15-17 >> >> (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some >> >> values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff >> >> (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not >> >> any control in clubs >> >> (4) First or second round control in hearts, >> >> and slam try in spades >> >> >> >> You, West, hold >> >> >> >> K432 >> >> AK >> >> AQJ9 >> >> 432 >> >> >> >> What call do you make? >> >> What's the problem? >> > >> > Partner has made a slam try, and has promised some control in >> > hearts, but not in the minors. >> > >> > The auction is a bit suspicious because partner might have >> > forgotten Texas, or I might have forgotten system, >> > but in case this is an UI problem I'd still consider >> > it an LA to not pass. >> > >> > Myself, ?I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. >> > That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 >> > fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx >> > won't increase partnership confidence. >> >> Any partner I know would cuebid 5C, not 5H with that hand. >> Unless you have an agreement to always cuebid shortness first. > > Old style bidding, intending to bid 6C over 5S, to show first round control > of hearts and second round control of clubs. > > If you don't like that example, I can give partner > AQxxxxxxx,void,xx,xx (9022 distribution). Agree, that's the kind of hand you'd play partner for if you pass 5S using modern bidding methods. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jun 20 11:15:59 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:15:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DFF0FCF.7040107@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/06/2011 9:47, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Matchpoint pairs >> Dlr: West >> Vul: Both >> >> WEST..........EAST >> 1NT(1)........4H (2) >> 4S (3)........5H (4) >> ? >> >> (1) 15-17 >> (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some >> values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff >> (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not >> any control in clubs >> (4) First or second round control in hearts, >> and slam try in spades >> AG : We need to know the pair's style. Such a high bid can't deny any control in the other suits. Playing it as a splinter, slightly ambiguous about other suits, is OK, so I'll take it as such and go to slam because of my good spades. >> You, West, hold >> >> K432 >> AK >> AQJ9 >> 432 >> >> What call do you make? >> What's the problem? > Partner has made a slam try, and has promised some control in > hearts, but not in the minors. Nearly impossible : since you signed off, partner wouldn't bid again on AQJxxxx-void-xxx-Qxx. > The auction is a bit suspicious because partner might have > forgotten Texas, or I might have forgotten system, > but in case this is an UI problem I'd still consider > it an LA to not pass. AG : usually, the UI problem would be partner's. Unless he said 'oops', you can't be sure that he went wrong. Although, seeing your cards, it's rather probable. > Myself, I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. > That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 > fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx > won't increase partnership confidence. > AG : if you wanted to, and didn't get any UI, you could always bid 6H. Not a bad bid anyway. Of course, partner probably did forget, as playing 4S as natural and 4H as transfer is highly toxic. Best regards Alain From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jun 20 11:20:35 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:20:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1896215068.12550.1308559443554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <308750386.8653. 1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1896215068.12550.1308559443554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4DFF10E3.3040501@meteo.fr> Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> 2011/6/20 Thomas Dehn : >>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>> Dlr: West >>>> Vul: Both >>>> >>>> WEST..........EAST >>>> 1NT(1)........4H (2) >>>> 4S (3)........5H (4) >>>> ? >>>> >>>> (1) 15-17 >>>> (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some >>>> values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff >>>> (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not >>>> any control in clubs >>>> (4) First or second round control in hearts, >>>> and slam try in spades >>>> >>>> You, West, hold >>>> >>>> K432 >>>> AK >>>> AQJ9 >>>> 432 >>>> >>>> What call do you make? >>>> What's the problem? >>> Partner has made a slam try, and has promised some control in >>> hearts, but not in the minors. >>> >>> The auction is a bit suspicious because partner might have >>> forgotten Texas, or I might have forgotten system, >>> but in case this is an UI problem I'd still consider >>> it an LA to not pass. >>> >>> Myself, I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. >>> That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 >>> fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx >>> won't increase partnership confidence. >> Any partner I know would cuebid 5C, not 5H with that hand. >> Unless you have an agreement to always cuebid shortness first. > > Old style bidding, intending to bid 6C over 5S, to show first round control > of hearts and second round control of clubs. it was you who said in a previous post that partner denied both minor controls. > > If you don't like that example, I can give partner > AQxxxxxxx,void,xx,xx (9022 distribution). possible: both opponents holding a spade void (one of which including the jack!), some values in minors, many hearts and unable of any bid. i see another widely more probable scenario. jpr > > > Thomas -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jun 20 11:32:39 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:32:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DFF10E3.3040501@meteo.fr> References: <308750386.8653. 1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <1896215068.12550.1308559443554.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> <4DFF10E3.3040501@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4DFF13B7.2090204@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/06/2011 11:20, jean-pierre.rocafort a ?crit : > Thomas Dehn a ?crit : >> Harald Skj?ran wrote: >>> 2011/6/20 Thomas Dehn: >>>> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>>>> Matchpoint pairs >>>>> Dlr: West >>>>> Vul: Both >>>>> >>>>> WEST..........EAST >>>>> 1NT(1)........4H (2) >>>>> 4S (3)........5H (4) >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> (1) 15-17 >>>>> (2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some >>>>> values, as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff >>>>> (3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not >>>>> any control in clubs >>>>> (4) First or second round control in hearts, >>>>> and slam try in spades >>>>> >>>>> You, West, hold >>>>> >>>>> K432 >>>>> AK >>>>> AQJ9 >>>>> 432 >>>>> >>>>> What call do you make? >>>>> What's the problem? >>>> Partner has made a slam try, and has promised some control in >>>> hearts, but not in the minors. >>>> >>>> The auction is a bit suspicious because partner might have >>>> forgotten Texas, or I might have forgotten system, >>>> but in case this is an UI problem I'd still consider >>>> it an LA to not pass. >>>> >>>> Myself, I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. >>>> That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 >>>> fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx >>>> won't increase partnership confidence. >>> Any partner I know would cuebid 5C, not 5H with that hand. >>> Unless you have an agreement to always cuebid shortness first. >> Old style bidding, intending to bid 6C over 5S, to show first round control >> of hearts and second round control of clubs. > it was you who said in a previous post that partner denied both minor > controls. >> If you don't like that example, I can give partner >> AQxxxxxxx,void,xx,xx (9022 distribution). > possible: both opponents holding a spade void (one of which including > the jack!), some values in minors, many hearts and unable of any bid. i > see another widely more probable scenario. AG : well, there are many. One Belgian expert pair plays 4H as BW (with 4C/D as SA Transfers), so perhaps partner thought he was playing with one of them, and signed off in 5H over our "no ace" response. The main point is : you *are* allowed by TFLB to decide that partner misbid, if he didn't show it. Now, did he, and are you allowed by your partnership's way of life ? Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Mon Jun 20 12:49:48 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:49:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DFF0FCF.7040107@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DFF0FCF.7040107@ulb.ac.be> <308750386.8653.1308556029363.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <2131957529.20318.1308566988501.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner > Le 20/06/2011 9:47, Thomas Dehn a ?crit : > > Myself, I don't gamble on partner having forgotten system. > > That does not pay off, and making partner play 5H in a 2-0 > > fit when partner holds something like AQxxxxx,void,Kxx,KQx > > won't increase partnership confidence. > > > AG : if you wanted to, and didn't get any UI, you could always bid 6H. > Not a bad bid anyway. I have that agreement the other way (playing with screens, thus usually no UI considerations): 6H by responder shows "oops, I actually have hearts". Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 20 17:34:19 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:34:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <3EBAF3D2-FA54-4E92-871D-D1FA9A85D36A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <027E53C2-B082-4898-8584-4D11606D7606@starpower.net> On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Since Eric is still graciously trying to understand and explain, I > will try to do the same. I see some progress today. > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> Jerry's view, as I've understood it, is that if the information >> arising strictly from the action at the table is sufficient to give >> the infraction a positive expectation, we are to presume that the >> player had whatever other information he might have needed at the >> time to determine that positive expectation. > > Exactly right! I want the director to assume that the player could > have figured out that his action would lead to an expected benefit for > his side at the time of his irregularity. It is like assuming the > player is an evil, diabolical genius, whether he is or not. This is the real bottom line. Is it good or bad for the game of bridge to adjudicate every irregularity under the presumption that the offending player is an evil, diabolical genius who has committed the irregularity for the explicit purpose of realizing some illicit gain? Or is it better in the long run to allow our adjudicators to determine that the could not possibly have been the case, and rule accordingly? Jerry would prefer to interpret L23 as though it read, "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender's irregularity could well damage the non-offending side..." I prefer to interpret it as though the actual wording ("...could well have been aware at the time of his irregularity...") is meaningful. > Whether the director thinks the player really could, would, or did > really do that is beside the point. I think I am echoing what Steve > Willner said today in this thread. > >> My view requires that the information that the infractor had at the >> time of his infraction is sufficient for him to determine that the >> expected value of his result will be improved by the infraction. >> >> Mine is that whether or >> not he could have had whatever other information he would have needed >> to make that determination is simply one more requirement of the law >> to be determined by the director, based on the available evidence, >> and if the director decides that that is not a possibility, he does >> not apply L23. > > Yes, this as Eric's suggested way. > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: >> >>> As promised yesterday, I will now address the issue that Eric called >>> "direct libel." I will try to handle the issue better this time. >>> >>> Perhaps I should just quote this from Richard Hills: "A >>> canonical example of a Law 23 infraction is East-West >>> bidding constructively in diamonds and North-South using >>> the favourable vulnerability to bid preemptively in >>> spades. East bids 6D, South saves in 6S, West bids 7D and >>> South doubles out-of-turn holding the ace of diamonds. >>> North's enforced Pass means that North does not take the >>> phantom sacrifice in 7S. Whether North-South are little >>> old ladies who are always smiling, or whether North- >>> South are unsmiling joyless experts who like winning >>> ugly, in both cases the Director applies Law 23." >>> >>> I entirely agree with this. I will use this example where South >>> doubles out of turn and gets his predictably great result. >>> >>> Eric would apparently let the little old ladies who are always >>> smiling >>> off if he knows (or almost sure knows) their character to be >>> excellent. Also, he would let them off if he knew that they were >>> beginners. >> >> There are no circumstances in this case under which I would "let them >> off". Even the rawest novice little old lady must know that by >> doubling she is telling partner that she expects the contract to go >> down, which would prevent her partner from saving, even if she could >> not possibly have known that the law would do that for her. > > It seems that Eric missed that both Richard and I are referring not to > doubling, but to doubling out_of_turn. Raw novice little old ladies > usually won't know what happens when a director rules after a double > out of turn, but I still recommend the director assuming they do > anyway, just like Steve recommended today. No, I did not miss that. Even the rawest novice little old lady must know that by doubling (out of turn) she is telling partner that she expects the contract to go down. That (irregularity) suffices to meet the criterion for applying L23. > The phrase "let them off" that I used was just supposed to stand for a > finding of no need for an L23 rectification. Perhaps Eric can suggest > a better phrase for that. I am using it to stand for a finding that L23 does not apply ("offender could not have been aware...), rather than a finding of no rectification when "the Director does not consider the offending side [to have] gained advantage..." >>> And he says that he would let them off if the self-serving >>> statement "comes >>> from a player whose last three contacts with me have been to report >>> scoring errors in [her] favor."---June 6. Hardly objective, I >>> think, >>> but that is what he said. >> >> Jerry has gotten hung up on this, and, similarly, on my statement >> about "100 to 1 odds". > > I thought it was what Eric was suggesting. Eric, please let us know > the procedure you have in mind if it differs from your previous > statements in this thread. I do not suggest any specific "procedure" beyond investigating and coming to a determination as to the balance of probability in a specific case, noting that the "balance of probability" in L23 cases applies to "could well have been aware", not to "was aware", and that the latter would imply something very different from what I am suggesting (albeit not so different from what Jerry seems to think I'm suggesting). My "100 to 1 odds" should be read as "the individual adjudicator's preferred criterion for accepting an alleged fact as true". Others might prefer the (roughly equivalent) "meeting the three-sigma confidence test", or even "I can't define it but I know it when I see it", or whatever. The only real issue is whether adjudicators are permitted to determine, by some criterion or other, that the player in question "could not have been aware..." or whether "could have been aware" is simply a meaningless phrase that could be elided from L23 without changing its meaning or application. >> I would suggest going back and reading those >> remarks in context. They were offered, external to the discussion of >> L23, to support my general argument that directors are called upon to >> judge the credibility of their players regularly and routinely, and >> manage to do so in whatever manner makes them comfortable, against >> Jerry's argument that doing so consitutes impossible and thus >> inherently unfair "mind reading" that directors shouldn't even >> attempt. > > Directors should not attempt to determine intent when the law does not > ask them to. Seem simple enough. And no one on BLML has yet said > that intent is worth finding out in L23 cases. Including me. "Credibility" is not synonymous with "intent", although this has nothing to do with L23. See above. If L23 were to have used "was aware" rather than "could well have been aware" then intent would matter. >> They were certainly not in any way meant to offer a >> specific procedure for L23 cases. > > I thought Eric was advising us on how to handle L23 cases. Does he > offer advice, but no procedure? If Eric feels that he has never > suggested a specific procedure, will he be willing to offer his > suggested procedure now? > >> Of >> course any director's "knowledge" about a player is central to his >> L23 ruling, or any other ruling for which rectification isn't pre- >> determined. > > It is possible that a director might have to determine their > partnership understandings, which may involve some questions or prior > knowledge about them. If you ask them questions to find their methods > that you need to know for the L23 ruling, okay. You might even need > to gage the player's honesty to determine their partnership > understandings. I am certainly okay with that. > > You might also need to determine whether some education or discipline > is worthwhile, and you may need questions for that. Absolutely; > please do. > > But other than those two specific possibilities, I suggest that the > director's belief about a player's experience, friendliness, kindness, > honesty, race, religion, politics, looks, gender, age, intelligence, > familiarity, kindness to animals, etc, have no place in making a good > L23 ruling. Some things are best ignored for good bridge rulings. I fully agree with regard to friendliness, kindness, honesty, race, religion, politics, looks, gender, age, intelligence, familiarity, kindness to animals, etc. And I would add bridge skill to the list. But I would go beyond Jerry's "two specific possibilities" by allowing adjudicators to take into account the player's extent of knowledge of the laws and past history of transgressing them. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 21 00:35:56 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:35:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <027E53C2-B082-4898-8584-4D11606D7606@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau >This is the real bottom line. Is it good or bad for the >game of bridge to adjudicate every irregularity under the >presumption that the offending player is an evil, >diabolical genius who has committed the irregularity for >the explicit purpose of realizing some illicit gain? Or >is it better in the long run to allow our adjudicators to >determine that this could not possibly have been the >case, and rule accordingly? [snip] Richard Hills In my opinion a straw man argument. My bottom line would change "adjudicate every irregularity" to "adjudicate every Alcatraz Coup". As TD I would not permit anyone to gain from an Alcatraz Coup, whether they were an evil, diabolical genius or whether they were a heroic, angelic Albert Einstein. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110620/194d9aa7/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 21 01:05:02 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:05:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] What's the problem? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2131957529.20318.1308566988501.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: >>Matchpoint pairs >>Dlr: West >>Vul: Both >> >>WEST..........EAST >>1NT(1)........4H (2) >>4S (3)........5H (4) >>? >> >>(1) 15-17 >>(2) Texas transfer to spades, promising some values, >>as 4S would be a pre-emptive signoff >>(3) Too wimpy to make a slam try, due to not any >>control in clubs >>(4) First or second round control in hearts, and slam >>try in spades >> >>You, West, hold >> >>K432 >>AK >>AQJ9 >>432 >> >>What call do you make? >>What's the problem? Thomas Dehn >I have that agreement the other way (playing with >screens, thus usually no UI considerations): >6H by responder shows "oops, I actually have hearts". > >Thomas Richard Hills In ACBL-land apparently there is a more economical implicit understanding that a mere 5H shows "oops, I actually have hearts". Given West's actual cards, an ACBL Appeals Committee ruled that it was the only logical alternative for West to assume a bidding error. East, of course, demonstrably suggested a bidding error by breaking tempo after West's alert and 4S. And of course West's pass of 5H was the last chance that East-West had to gain a plus score. A Short History of Texas, by Maurice Harrison-Gray (Bridge Magazine, December 1960) [big snip] Even in the best circles we get episodes such as this: Dealer North: N-S vulnerable ...........NORTH ...........KT6 ...........A2 ...........K8654 ...........AK3 WEST...................EAST A87....................J5432 975....................63 AQ92...................T73 T95....................J42 ...........SOUTH ...........Q9 ...........KQJT84 ...........J ...........Q876 This hand came from the European Championship of 1958. The British North opened 1NT and South blandly bid four hearts. North was not the absent-minded one on this occasion; he transferred to four spades. South then woke up; the only way to clarify the situation, he decided, was to jump to six hearts. North grinned sardonically and passed. West does not appear to have noticed anything unusual in the proceedings; perhaps he was taken in by South's well- simulated air of insouciance. He led the ace of spades and South blanched when he saw that another ace was missing ... how was he going to talk his way out of this one? Strange to relate, the slam made. West felt that an attempt to cash his other ace, apart from insulting his opponents, would hand them the contract if South were void in diamonds; a passive spade continuation, he decided, was a much safer shot. The result was thus a unique triumph for the Anglo-Texas alliance. Would this slam have been bid (and made) if our pair had never heard of the convention? [big snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110620/9fb8006a/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 21 02:29:18 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:29:18 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Doctor Johnson's dictionary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills Doctor Johnson's dictionary defines "garret" as "the top room of the house", but defines "cockloft" as "the room above the garret". A flaw in the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge is that some words have meanings slightly askew from their standard dictionary definitions. The most notorious is that the word "logical" has the Lawful meaning "perhaps illogical" when it is used in the Lawful phrase "logical alternative". But of very much greater significance is that the word "explanation" does not fully correspond to its dictionary definition, with instead its Lawful meaning limited to that of an "explanation of a pre-existing mutual explicit or implicit partnership understanding". Law 75C ..... Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. ..... South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently. Law 20F1 ..... He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action =+=where these are matters of partnership understanding.=+= ..... Richard Hills Ergo, the TD sending one partner away from the table and requiring the other partner to "explain" her unilateral intent in making an undiscussed call is consistent with the broad dictionary definition of "explain". However, this is a Director's Error, not only inconsistent with the very narrow Lawbook definition of "explain", but also detracting from that player's rights under Law 40A3. 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 Many years ago I played in a practice match behind screens. My partner, for the first and only time, was the gafiated blmler Mark Abraham. At one point I chose a call and wrote this explanation to my screen-mate, "Undiscussed". My screen-mate summoned the Director to ask if my explanation was adequate. Fortunately the Director was the Chief Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, so he correctly replied that if my explanation was accurate, then it was adequate. And convincing evidence that my explanation was accurate emerged at the end of play, since Mark Abraham had given his screen-mate this written explanation of my call, "Undiscussed". :-) :-) 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110621/8946c129/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jun 21 13:20:47 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Doctor Johnson's dictionary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18360605.733121308655247279.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Interestingly 'undiscussed' is not synonymous with "no agreement". It does not exclude the possibility of an implicit agreement. Both players may indeed recall the occasion when they agreed not to discuss the call but the partnershp may be saddled with an understanding by other circumstances. The Director ought to satisfy himself as to this potentiality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 21/06/2011 1:29 >To: >Subj: [BLML] Doctor Johnson's dictionary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >Richard Hills > >Doctor Johnson's dictionary defines "garret" as "the top >room of the house", but defines "cockloft" as "the room >above the garret". > >A flaw in the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge is that some >words have meanings slightly askew from their standard >dictionary definitions. The most notorious is that the >word "logical" has the Lawful meaning "perhaps illogical" >when it is used in the Lawful phrase "logical alternative". > >But of very much greater significance is that the word >"explanation" does not fully correspond to its dictionary >definition, with instead its Lawful meaning limited to that >of an "explanation of a pre-existing mutual explicit or >implicit partnership understanding". > ...................omissis.................................. > >Many years ago I played in a practice match behind screens. >My partner, for the first and only time, was the gafiated >blmler Mark Abraham. At one point I chose a call and wrote >this explanation to my screen-mate, "Undiscussed". My >screen-mate summoned the Director to ask if my explanation >was adequate. Fortunately the Director was the Chief >Director of Australia, Sean Mullamphy, so he correctly >replied that if my explanation was accurate, then it was >adequate. And convincing evidence that my explanation was >accurate emerged at the end of play, since Mark Abraham >had given his screen-mate this written explanation of my >call, "Undiscussed". :-) :-) > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jun 22 02:56:24 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:56:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Doctor Johnson's dictionary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <18360605.733121308655247279.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: +=+ Interestingly "undiscussed" is not synonymous with "no agreement". It does not exclude the possibility of an implicit agreement. Both players may indeed recall the occasion when they agreed not to discuss the call but the partnership may be saddled with an understanding by other circumstances. The Director ought to satisfy himself as to this potentiality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes and No. In accordance with the theme of this thread, Aussie authorities agree with the substance of Grattan's point BUT via use of non-Grattanic imprecise language. Best wishes Richard Hills 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110622/f0a6fdfc/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 22 10:15:59 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:15:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Doctor Johnson's dictionary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15563560.823891308730559586.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Apparently the ABF interpretation of "undiscussed" is that, standing alone and unqualified, it denies a partnership understanding whether explicit or implicit. It is, as you might say, an esoteric ABF cult usage. Even so I suggest it is still appropriate for the director to satisfy himself there is no implicit understanding. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ............................................................ >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 22/06/2011 1:56 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Doctor Johnson's dictionary [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >+=+ Interestingly "undiscussed" is not synonymous with >"no agreement". It does not exclude the possibility of >an implicit agreement. Both players may indeed recall >the occasion when they agreed not to discuss the call >but the partnership may be saddled with an understanding >by other circumstances. The Director ought to satisfy >himself as to this potentiality. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Yes and No. In accordance with the theme of this thread, >Aussie authorities agree with the substance of Grattan's >point BUT via use of non-Grattanic imprecise language. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > >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. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged >and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 petereidt at t-online.de Wed Jun 22 10:21:59 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:21:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 Message-ID: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Hi Grattan & Herman, I do not understand the TD's and AC's decision and I can not live with it either. (see also bulletin no.5) 5 4 2 A K 10 2 Q 4 3 8 4 2 10 A K Q 9 8 3 Q J 6 5 3 4 K 6 5 2 J A K Q 9 7 6 5 3 J 7 6 9 8 7 A 10 9 8 7 J 10 East was declarer in 4 spades. Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. K clubs, East discarded his diamond. Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. South played A diamonds and after dummy followed suit, North called the TD. East made 12 tricks. The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64 C. Why ??? The reasoning of the AC showed that they considered the equity position for the second revoke as _after_ the first revoke (so to say: "what would be the outcome of the hand after revoking once and getting 1 rectification trick?") and not _immediately before_ the second revoke (so to say: "what would have happended, if the second revoke had not been committed?"). I thought it would be clear that Law 64 C does _not_ mean the equity of a hand prior to trick 1 but the equity to a hand (immediately) prior to (any of) the revoke(s). In the same sense the equity situation for the 2nd revoke is not the position after the 1st revoke, but the position immediately prior to the 2nd revoke (which is here only 2 cards later). Yes, here after the 1st revoke the rectification compensates the irregularity and Law 64 A2 gets us back to 11 tricks. But this does not mean that declarer now will change his play of the cards, does it? In fact he _did_ play the Q clubs and _if_ he had followed suit - a must - he would have ended with 10 tricks (a ruff, a heart and the rectification trick from above). And the AC expressly stated that he would have ended with 10 tricks, had the defending side called the TD before the 2nd revoke had been established. This declarer revokes once: ok, he gets 1 trick off, case exhausted. Then this declarer made a second revoke and _gained_ directly through it. (??) I cannot believe this to be the intention of the WBF LC. Maybe the wording of Minute ("If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.") could have been better / clearer in saying "by reference to the position before the second revoke". ??Peter?? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 22 10:48:52 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:48:52 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ We have been taking bets as to who would be first to post this on blml. We have our answer. The director rules as to the position at the table when he arrives there. Equity is a safety net which sets the minimum outcome for the NO side when the director refers to Law 64C. At the table one red card was embedded in the second revoke trick and irretrievable after the revoke was established. The WBFLC minute is an authorized interpretation of the law and it defines the 64C equity in respect of the second revoke. No matter whether you agree or not neither the director nor the AC has the power to override the official interpretation which binds them both. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ..................................................... >----Original Message---- >From: petereidt at t-online.de >Date: 22/06/2011 9:21 >To: "blml" >Subj: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 > >Hi Grattan & Herman, > >I do not understand the TD's and AC's decision >and I can not live with it either. > >(see also bulletin no.5) > > 5 4 2 > A K 10 2 > Q 4 3 > 8 4 2 > 10 A K Q 9 8 3 > Q J 6 5 3 4 > K 6 5 2 J > A K Q 9 7 6 5 3 > J 7 6 > 9 8 7 > A 10 9 8 7 > J 10 > >East was declarer in 4 spades. >Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. >K clubs, East discarded his diamond. >Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. >South played A diamonds and after dummy followed >suit, North called the TD. >East made 12 tricks. > >The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64 C. >Why ??? > >The reasoning of the AC showed that they considered >the equity position for the second revoke as _after_ the >first revoke (so to say: "what would be the outcome of >the hand after revoking once and getting 1 rectification trick?") >and not _immediately before_ the second revoke (so to say: >"what would have happended, if the second revoke had not >been committed?"). > >I thought it would be clear that Law 64 C does _not_ >mean the equity of a hand prior to trick 1 but the equity >to a hand (immediately) prior to (any of) the revoke(s). >In the same sense the equity situation for the 2nd revoke >is not the position after the 1st revoke, but the position >immediately prior to the 2nd revoke (which is here only >2 cards later). > >Yes, here after the 1st revoke the rectification compensates >the irregularity and Law 64 A2 gets us back to 11 tricks. > >But this does not mean that declarer now will change his >play of the cards, does it? >In fact he _did_ play the Q clubs and _if_ he had followed >suit - a must - he would have ended with 10 tricks (a ruff, >a heart and the rectification trick from above). >And the AC expressly stated that he would have ended with >10 tricks, had the defending side called the TD before the >2nd revoke had been established. > >This declarer revokes once: ok, he gets 1 trick off, case >exhausted. >Then this declarer made a second revoke and _gained_ >directly through it. (??) > >I cannot believe this to be the intention of the WBF LC. >Maybe the wording of Minute ("If there are two revokes on >the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke >is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.") >could have been better / clearer in saying "by reference to the >position before the second revoke". > >??Peter?? > > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jun 22 10:53:01 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:53:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001201cc30b9$caebb630$60c32290$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Hi Peter, You are too young for this work. What does: 'I can not live with it' mean? You have to live it, and worse, I have to live with it as well. The AC in Poznan made two mistakes, one of which couldn't be avoided apparently, which is coming to the opinion they so firmly have expressed. If even the help of the secretary of the wbf laws committee, who attended the meeting according to the write up, can't prevent such mistake, then what can be done? The second mistake is that the AC does not have the authority to even consider to overrule the TD on a point of law. Which is what they did. Their approach should have been: Mr. TD, we don't know what the ruling should be (which according to their decision was true) so we have to believe you. The pity then is that it wouldn't have changed the decision, despite all the European TD courses given, since the TD came up with the same answer. Though I know that at least two TD's in Poznan had the correct answer, which you describe clearly. We might ask the Daily Bulletin to publish our combined reaction, but I know that organizations are reluctant to publish their mistakes. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter Eidt Verzonden: woensdag 22 juni 2011 10:22 Aan: blml Onderwerp: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 Hi Grattan & Herman, I do not understand the TD's and AC's decision and I can not live with it either. (see also bulletin no.5) 5 4 2 A K 10 2 Q 4 3 8 4 2 10 A K Q 9 8 3 Q J 6 5 3 4 K 6 5 2 J A K Q 9 7 6 5 3 J 7 6 9 8 7 A 10 9 8 7 J 10 East was declarer in 4 spades. Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. K clubs, East discarded his diamond. Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. South played A diamonds and after dummy followed suit, North called the TD. East made 12 tricks. The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64 C. Why ??? The reasoning of the AC showed that they considered the equity position for the second revoke as _after_ the first revoke (so to say: "what would be the outcome of the hand after revoking once and getting 1 rectification trick?") and not _immediately before_ the second revoke (so to say: "what would have happended, if the second revoke had not been committed?"). I thought it would be clear that Law 64 C does _not_ mean the equity of a hand prior to trick 1 but the equity to a hand (immediately) prior to (any of) the revoke(s). In the same sense the equity situation for the 2nd revoke is not the position after the 1st revoke, but the position immediately prior to the 2nd revoke (which is here only 2 cards later). Yes, here after the 1st revoke the rectification compensates the irregularity and Law 64 A2 gets us back to 11 tricks. But this does not mean that declarer now will change his play of the cards, does it? In fact he _did_ play the Q clubs and _if_ he had followed suit - a must - he would have ended with 10 tricks (a ruff, a heart and the rectification trick from above). And the AC expressly stated that he would have ended with 10 tricks, had the defending side called the TD before the 2nd revoke had been established. This declarer revokes once: ok, he gets 1 trick off, case exhausted. Then this declarer made a second revoke and _gained_ directly through it. (??) I cannot believe this to be the intention of the WBF LC. Maybe the wording of Minute ("If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.") could have been better / clearer in saying "by reference to the position before the second revoke". ??Peter?? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1382 / Virusdatabase: 1513/3718 - datum van uitgifte: 06/21/11 From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 22 11:14:32 2011 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:14:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> Am 22.06.2011 10:48, schrieb grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk: > +=+ The director rules as to the position at the table > when he arrives there. Equity is a safety net which > sets the minimum outcome for the NO side when the > director refers to Law 64C. At the table one red > card was embedded in the second revoke trick and > irretrievable after the revoke was established. Grattan, I don`t have the first idea what you are trying to say. Doubtless this is owing to my imperfect command of the language. Could you please elaborate, for a non-native speaker who is right out of his depth? Best regards Matthias > The WBFLC minute is an authorized interpretation > of the law and it defines the 64C equity in respect > of the second revoke. No matter whether you agree > or not neither the director nor the AC has the power > to override the official interpretation which binds > them both. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ..................................................... From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 22 11:30:18 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:30:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <001201cc30b9$caebb630$60c32290$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <001201cc30b9$caebb630$60c32290$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <10421261.834501308735018020.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Three comments: (a) the Chief Director had agreed the table director's ruling. (b) the regulations provide, as they have done for many years in EBL Championships, that for the purposes of the Championships the Tournament Appeals Committee is also the national authority under Law 93C. (c) as an officer of the WBF Laws Cttee I have no personal position and no choice but to stand by the minute as written and ratified. If the committee had wanted to say something different the wording needed to be different. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ......................................................... >----Original Message---- >From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl >Date: 22/06/2011 9:53 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 > >Hi Peter, > > >You are too young for this work. What does: 'I can not live with it' mean? > >You have to live it, and worse, I have to live with it as well. > >The AC in Poznan made two mistakes, one of which couldn't be avoided >apparently, which is coming to the opinion they so firmly have expressed. If >even the help of the secretary of the wbf laws committee, who attended the >meeting according to the write up, can't prevent such mistake, then what can >be done? > >The second mistake is that the AC does not have the authority to even >consider to overrule the TD on a point of law. Which is what they did. Their >approach should have been: Mr. TD, we don't know what the ruling should be >(which according to their decision was true) so we have to believe you. The >pity then is that it wouldn't have changed the decision, despite all the >European TD courses given, since the TD came up with the same answer. Though >I know that at least two TD's in Poznan had the correct answer, which you >describe clearly. > > >We might ask the Daily Bulletin to publish our combined reaction, but I know >that organizations are reluctant to publish their mistakes. > >ton > >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter >Eidt >Verzonden: woensdag 22 juni 2011 10:22 >Aan: blml >Onderwerp: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 > >Hi Grattan & Herman, > >I do not understand the TD's and AC's decision >and I can not live with it either. > >(see also bulletin no.5) > > 5 4 2 > A K 10 2 > Q 4 3 > 8 4 2 > 10 A K Q 9 8 3 > Q J 6 5 3 4 > K 6 5 2 J > A K Q 9 7 6 5 3 > J 7 6 > 9 8 7 > A 10 9 8 7 > J 10 > >East was declarer in 4 spades. >Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. >K clubs, East discarded his diamond. >Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. >South played A diamonds and after dummy followed >suit, North called the TD. >East made 12 tricks. > >The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64 C. >Why ??? > >The reasoning of the AC showed that they considered >the equity position for the second revoke as _after_ the >first revoke (so to say: "what would be the outcome of >the hand after revoking once and getting 1 rectification trick?") >and not _immediately before_ the second revoke (so to say: >"what would have happended, if the second revoke had not >been committed?"). > >I thought it would be clear that Law 64 C does _not_ >mean the equity of a hand prior to trick 1 but the equity >to a hand (immediately) prior to (any of) the revoke(s). >In the same sense the equity situation for the 2nd revoke >is not the position after the 1st revoke, but the position >immediately prior to the 2nd revoke (which is here only >2 cards later). > >Yes, here after the 1st revoke the rectification compensates >the irregularity and Law 64 A2 gets us back to 11 tricks. > >But this does not mean that declarer now will change his >play of the cards, does it? >In fact he _did_ play the Q clubs and _if_ he had followed >suit - a must - he would have ended with 10 tricks (a ruff, >a heart and the rectification trick from above). >And the AC expressly stated that he would have ended with >10 tricks, had the defending side called the TD before the >2nd revoke had been established. > >This declarer revokes once: ok, he gets 1 trick off, case >exhausted. >Then this declarer made a second revoke and _gained_ >directly through it. (??) > >I cannot believe this to be the intention of the WBF LC. >Maybe the wording of Minute ("If there are two revokes on >the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke >is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.") >could have been better / clearer in saying "by reference to the >position before the second revoke". > >??Peter?? > > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >----- >Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. >Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com >Versie: 10.0.1382 / Virusdatabase: 1513/3718 - datum van uitgifte: 06/21/11 > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 22 12:57:53 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:57:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> Message-ID: <21664437.846951308740273599.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Hi Matthias, I apologize if my carefully worded statements are difficult to follow. I do not wish to dilute the precision of my original words, so subject to this: 1. The director arrived at the table and his finding was that in the position reached declarer would make twelve tricks less one for the first revoke; he therefore awarded 11 tricks. 2. As required by law, and conscious of the argument that only ten tricks would be made if he ruled before the second revoke became established, he consulted Law 64C. If unaffected by any other consideration Law 64C might be construed as allowing him to award ten tricks rather than eleven. 3. However, the subject had arisen in Beijing 2008 and the WBF Laws Committee had minuted an interpretation of the law there by which the situation after the first revoke determines the Law 64C equity in respect of the ruling in the case of the second revoke. That is eleven tricks not ten. So here under 64C the NOS is not to be considered damaged by the award of eleven tricks. 4. The Chief Director agreed the ruling. 5. I think I may reasonably observe that in preparing the minutes my draft is reviewed by the Committee chairman who makes such alterations as he wishes, is then available to the committee for its approval subject to limitations of time, and subsequently is presented for ratification by the Executive Council, normally by the chairman of the committee in person. My point is that the minute has to be taken as written after this extended process. There is no error in taking it so. If any error occurred in this matter it occurred in 2008. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ............................................................ >----Original Message---- >From: ziffbridge at t-online.de >Date: 22/06/2011 10:14 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 > >Am 22.06.2011 10:48, schrieb grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk: >> +=+ The director rules as to the position at the table >> when he arrives there. Equity is a safety net which >> sets the minimum outcome for the NO side when the >> director refers to Law 64C. At the table one red >> card was embedded in the second revoke trick and >> irretrievable after the revoke was established. > >Grattan, I don`t have the first idea what you are trying to say. >Doubtless this is owing to my imperfect command of the language. Could >you please elaborate, for a non-native speaker who is right out of his >depth? > >Best regards >Matthias > >> The WBFLC minute is an authorized interpretation >> of the law and it defines the 64C equity in respect >> of the second revoke. No matter whether you agree >> or not neither the director nor the AC has the power >> to override the official interpretation which binds >> them both. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> ..................................................... > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 12:59:38 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:59:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4E01CB1A.6080005@gmail.com> On 22/06/2011 11:14, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > Am 22.06.2011 10:48, schrieb grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk: >> +=+ The director rules as to the position at the table >> when he arrives there. Equity is a safety net which >> sets the minimum outcome for the NO side when the >> director refers to Law 64C. At the table one red >> card was embedded in the second revoke trick and >> irretrievable after the revoke was established. > > Grattan, I don`t have the first idea what you are trying to say. > Doubtless this is owing to my imperfect command of the language. Could > you please elaborate, for a non-native speaker who is right out of his > depth? It took me some time to understand this too, but I believe the idea is that when 64C is applied, the NO-side cannot do any worse than whatever they would have done without all the revokes. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jun 22 13:40:50 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:40:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <4E01CB1A.6080005@gmail.com> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> <4E01CB1A.6080005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E01D4C2.7040109@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/06/2011 12:59, Henk Uijterwaal a ?crit : > On 22/06/2011 11:14, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> Am 22.06.2011 10:48, schrieb grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk: >>> +=+ The director rules as to the position at the table >>> when he arrives there. Equity is a safety net which >>> sets the minimum outcome for the NO side when the >>> director refers to Law 64C. At the table one red >>> card was embedded in the second revoke trick and >>> irretrievable after the revoke was established. >> Grattan, I don`t have the first idea what you are trying to say. >> Doubtless this is owing to my imperfect command of the language. Could >> you please elaborate, for a non-native speaker who is right out of his >> depth? > It took me some time to understand this too, but I believe the idea is > that when 64C is applied, the NO-side cannot do any worse than whatever > they would have done without all the revokes. AG : agreed, and that is indeed 10 tricks. The problem is that declarer's worst-case trick count after the fisrt revoke is NOT 11 tricks ; it is 10 (11-1) if declarer plays a third club, as he has done, and follows suit. This is an error, to be sure, but it was possible that he played a third club ; proof : he did it ; and is surely was possible that he followed suit. Best regards Alain From ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Jun 22 14:00:27 2011 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:00:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <21664437.846951308740273599.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> <21664437.846951308740273599.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <4E01D95B.80302@t-online.de> Hi Grattan, thank you for claryfying. Am 22.06.2011 12:57, schrieb grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk: > +=+ Hi Matthias, > I apologize if my carefully worded statements are difficult > to follow. I do not wish to dilute the precision of my original > words, so subject to this: > 1. The director arrived at the table and his finding was > that in the position reached declarer would make twelve tricks > less one for the first revoke; he therefore awarded 11 tricks. > 2. As required by law, and conscious of the argument that > only ten tricks would be made if he ruled before the second > revoke became established, he consulted Law 64C. If unaffected > by any other consideration Law 64C might be construed as > allowing him to award ten tricks rather than eleven. > 3. However, the subject had arisen in Beijing 2008 and the > WBF Laws Committee had minuted an interpretation of the law > there by which the situation after the first revoke determines > the Law 64C equity in respect of the ruling in the case of the > second revoke. That is eleven tricks not ten. So here under > 64C the NOS is not to be considered damaged by the award of > eleven tricks. Bill Clinton made it fashionable to discuss very short words. Since he covered "is" quite extensively, maybe we should turn to "after"... I gather that you read it here as A:"the moment after offender didn`t follow suit, the revoke going to become established in the course of events, else we would have no 64C case to talk about", not B: "the moment after the revoke became established", and certainly not C: "the moment immediately before the second revoke". (Then again, Icould be wrong, so correct me if I misstate your opinion here). Peter (and Ton as well, I think) would like to have C, and I can see why they do. Declarer did, in fact, gain by revoking again and establishing this revoke, compared to following suit + paying the first penalty. This feels wrong. It is not clear to me (a non-native) why A should be covered by "after", while B and C are not. > 4. The Chief Director agreed the ruling. > 5. I think I may reasonably observe that in preparing the > minutes my draft is reviewed by the Committee chairman who > makes such alterations as he wishes, is then available to the > committee for its approval subject to limitations of time, and > subsequently is presented for ratification by the Executive > Council, normally by the chairman of the committee in person. > My point is that the minute has to be taken as written after > this extended process. There is no error in taking it so. If > any error occurred in this matter it occurred in 2008. May I suggest that the procedures to arrive at these minutes are - to my eyes - suboptimal? I think the text should be translated by very able people to the mother languages of the people in the committee, in order to have everybody be very sure what it is they agree too, and better have it run by an advocatus diaboli or two to find out where it can be misread (or where its reading does not deliver what was agreed upon). This may cost time, but saves face after cases like this one. Best regards Matthias > Regards, > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ............................................................ > From gampas at aol.com Wed Jun 22 14:28:55 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:28:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <8CDFEEF164FFBF6-1A88-9C6C7@webmail-m169.sysops.aol.com> In my opinion the TD and AC got this completely wrong. There is no need whatsoever for them to decide what is meant by equity and when. They should have applied the following tests: a) Was there an infraction by the declarer? b) Did she benefit from the infraction? c) Could she have known that she would? On a). Yes. C. Requirement to Follow Suit In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. On b). Yes. If she had followed to the third club, she would have made 11 tricks, and 10 after the one-trick penalty. By revoking she was given 11. On c). Yes. She could have known that following would have made 10 tricks. She could have known that South would ruff this trick, and by revoking on it she would make 11 tricks. Law 23 states: Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity Now, if the Director was not of the opinion that the declarer in this situation "could have been aware" the infraction would benefit her, then he does not award an adjusted score, and the AC might be correct. However, in my view, that would be a perverse opinion. In this case, the defender "should have known" that the infraction would be to her advantage. Just by adding up to 13, and reading the Laws of Bridge. Law 23 in its present guise is designed to stop "accidental" errors like the Alcatraz Coup. That is why I believe the TD and AC were quite wrong in this case. I strongly urge this case to be referred to the WBFLC Laws Committee. It must be overturned before it becomes a "precedent". From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 14:30:05 2011 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:30:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: I do not wish to comment very deeply (yet), but there are a few mistakes in Peter's reasoning: Op 22 juni 2011 10:21 heeft Peter Eidt het volgende geschreven: > > This declarer revokes once: ok, he gets 1 trick off, case > exhausted. > Then this declarer made a second revoke and _gained_ > directly through it. (??) > No he did not! He had 11 tricks (12-1) after the first revoke and 11 after the TD and AC decision - no gain whatsoever. > I cannot believe this to be the intention of the WBF LC. > Maybe the wording of Minute ("If there are two revokes on > the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke > is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.") > could have been better / clearer in saying "by reference to the > position before the second revoke". > That would have made a difference - maybe considered better - but it is not what the minute says so we should not consider it when adjudicating here and now. Herman. > ??Peter?? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gampas at aol.com Wed Jun 22 14:45:21 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:45:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <8CDFEF161C8CB42-1A88-9C9D8@webmail-m169.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] No he did not! He had 11 tricks (12-1) after the first revoke and 11 after the TD and AC decision - no gain whatsoever. [Paul Lamford] As you know, I disagree on this basis as well. The equity "after the first revoke" must mean the "equity after the first established revoke" as a revoke that has not been established has no effect on the equity. This means the point at which the QC was led to trick three, at which point the equity was 10 tricks. Declarer upped this to 11 by revoking a second time. As Ton states, I think that an official statement from the WBFLC Committee should be published in the bulletin disagreeing with the TD and AC. The Chief TD should have accepted the advice of his colleagues, the majority of whom I know told him he was wrong. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 22 16:18:25 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:18:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <8CDFEF161C8CB42-1A88-9C9D8@webmail-m169.sysops.aol.com> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <8CDFEF161C8CB42-1A88-9C9D8@webmail-m169.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <26841344.877471308752305887.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ No-one has authority to issue an official statement on behalf of the committee unless the statement has the prior approval of the committee. Any opinions I or Ton may express are our own opinions and not attributable to the committee corporately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >----Original Message---- >From: gampas at aol.com >Date: 22/06/2011 13:45 >To: >Subj: Re: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 > > >As Ton states, I think that an official statement from the WBFLC Committee should be published in the bulletin disagreeing with the TD and AC. The Chief TD should have accepted the advice of his colleagues, the majority of whom I know told him he was wrong. >> From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jun 22 16:35:51 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:35:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <10421261.834501308735018020.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <001201cc30b9$caebb630$60c32290$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <10421261.834501308735018020.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <002201cc30e9$af6448c0$0e2cda40$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> (c) as an officer of the WBF Laws Cttee I have no personal position and no choice but to stand by the minute as written and ratified. If the committee had wanted to say something different the wording needed to be different. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Different wording? For you 'yes', not for me. You present this as if your interpretation is the only possible one. But it isn't. The discussion in Being had to do with the question whether in case of a second revoke in the same suit, the application of 64C needs to be made if without both revokes the non-offending would get more tricks, including the penalty trick(s), Or should be made concerning the second revoke, meaning that we apply 64C if the non-offenders would get more tricks if they would have made more without the second revoke and starting count with the trick in which the second revoke occurred. It is compensation for the loss of trick(s) because of the second revoke. Our decision was to follow the latter approach and this was written down in our minutes as: L64C applies after the first revoke. What rigid interpretation of the word 'after' is Grattan making? When I say: it happened after the second world war (ending on the 5th of May 1945 in the Netherlands), I don't mean to say that it happened on the 6th of May of the same year, it might have happened in 2010. What I do say is that it didn't happen before or during. Well it happened before the second world war that anybody was able to convince Grattan that he made a mistake. So just for all others: Two important European members of the wbf laws committee present in Poznan do fully agree with me. So Europe should know what to do if this happens again. One more remark to make things more complicated even. If the penalty tricks for the first and the application of 64C for the second do not compensate for the number of tricks won without any of these two revokes 64C has to be applied ignoring both revokes. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jun 22 16:39:19 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:39:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <4E01D95B.80302@t-online.de> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> <21664437.846951308740273599.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01D95B.80302@t-online.de> Message-ID: <002301cc30ea$2b84b660$828e2320$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> May I suggest that the procedures to arrive at these minutes are - to my eyes - suboptimal? I think the text should be translated by very able people to the mother languages of the people in the committee, in order to have everybody be very sure what it is they agree too, and better have it run by an advocatus diaboli or two to find out where it can be misread (or where its reading does not deliver what was agreed upon). This may cost time, but saves face after cases like this one. Best regards Matthias It won't help, Grattan will find his way out. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jun 22 16:45:41 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:45:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <26841344.877471308752305887.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <8CDFEF161C8CB42-1A88-9C9D8@webmail-m169.sysops.aol.com> <26841344.877471308752305887.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <002401cc30eb$0f00cbe0$2d0263a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> +=+ No-one has authority to issue an official statement on behalf of the committee unless the statement has the prior approval of the committee. Any opinions I or Ton may express are our own opinions and not attributable to the committee corporately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Then it would have been nice to say more explicitly, I couldn't read it implicitly even, that the interpretation as followed in Poznan is yours and may be of other members of the AC but not that of the WBF LC, which you dominantly tried to convince us about. ton From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Jun 22 17:01:18 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:01:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?EC_Poznan_-_Appeal_No=2E4?= Message-ID: <1QZOve-0rE3w80@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > I do not wish to comment very deeply (yet), but there are a few > mistakes in Peter's reasoning: ahh ... mistakes ... oh yes, sure ... and even a few of them ... > Op 22 juni 2011 10:21 heeft Peter Eidt het > volgende geschreven: > > > > This declarer revokes once: ok, he gets 1 trick off, case > > exhausted. > > Then this declarer made a second revoke and _gained_ > > directly through it. (??) > > No he did not! He had 11 tricks (12-1) after the first revoke and 11 > after the TD and AC decision - no gain whatsoever. yes, he had 11 tricks after the first revoke, but then he played the Queen of clubs and at this point he had only 10 tricks - as the AC correctly stated !! _Now_ this player revoked (again) and after this revoke became established, he suddenly had 11 tricks again (at least according to the AC). In my world this is directly gaining through the 2nd revoke. > > I cannot believe this to be the intention of the WBF LC. > > Maybe the wording of Minute ("If there are two revokes on > > the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke > > is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.") > > could have been better / clearer in saying "by reference to the > > position before the second revoke". > > > That would have made a difference - maybe considered better - but it > is not what the minute says so we should not consider it when > adjudicating here and now. I'll try it once more very slowly (and the rest we can "discuss" on friday): Law 64 C does not "define" the equity of a whole hand. All tricks (and cards) that are played before a revoke happenes may change the "equity-outcome" of a hand. In the same way the Minute of the WBF LC IMO can't mean, (although you maybe can read it) that the "equity-outcome" of a hand-with-a-2nd-revoke-in-the-same-suit is fixed only after the occurrence of the 1st revoke. The 2nd revoke need not be in the very next trick; there may be some tricks in between. All this may change the expectation of the outcome in this board. Therefore "equity" has to be evaluated in / for the moment immediately prior to the revoke in question. This is the same for every revoke and here it is the same for the 1st as for the 2nd revoke. I'm very sure (although I wasn't there in any WBF LC meetings; but anything else simply doesn't make sense) that the word "after" in the Minute means that the equity of a hand may (and will) change after a revoke and that the equity-outcome for the 2nd revoke need not be the same as for the 1st one. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jun 22 17:16:31 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:16:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <002301cc30ea$2b84b660$828e2320$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> <21664437.846951308740273599.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01D95B.80302@t-online.de> <002301cc30ea$2b84b660$828e2320$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <24583913.885041308755791660.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Amusing. I discuss and debate potential laws in the decision making process but when the committee in its wisdom agrees what the wording of a law or minute shall be I leave debate aside and concentrate upon what it says in my understanding of the English language. I have no doubt that in normal English usage "after" in the 2008 minute means following and before other action occurs. However, I see that, as has previously been the case on occasion, Ton has a different view of the language. One has to be relaxed about such things, but it will require fresh words in due course to express a committee intention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ...................................................... >----Original Message---- >From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl >Date: 22/06/2011 15:39 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 > > > >May I suggest that the procedures to arrive at these minutes are - to my >eyes - suboptimal? I think the text should be translated by very able >people to the mother languages of the people in the committee, in order >to have everybody be very sure what it is they agree too, and better >have it run by an advocatus diaboli or two to find out where it can be >misread (or where its reading does not deliver what was agreed upon). >This may cost time, but saves face after cases like this one. > >Best regards >Matthias > >It won't help, Grattan will find his way out. > >ton > From gampas at aol.com Wed Jun 22 18:20:28 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:20:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <24583913.885041308755791660.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <4795187.827991308732532665.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4E01B278.8050409@t-online.de> <21664437.846951308740273599.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost><4E01D95B.80302@t-online.de><002301cc30ea$2b84b660$828e2320$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <24583913.885041308755791660.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <8CDFF0F6F6CC3E2-C28-1DAD6@webmail-d067.sysops.aol.com> [grattan] I have no doubt that in normal English usage "after" in the 2008 minute means following and before other action occurs. [paul lamford] I have no doubt that in normal English usage "immediately after" means following and before other action occurs. When a learned commentator suggested on Bridge Base that the Zimmerman team played much better *after* the first stanza of the Mixed Teams Final against Vriend, it did not seem to me to just refer to the 17th board. However, it is also clear that if the equity after the first revoke was actually higher than before it, and there was a second or later revoke, the adjusted score would be to the highest equity that the non-offenders had at any time in the play. So applying a literal interpretation just produces nonsense. Of course we could have a situation where both sides revoke more than once. Indeed in the beginner class I taught this was a regular occurrence. So, what happens if both sides gain from their second revokes? We probably need a weighted score with each side getting the lowest equity at any point in the play. The alternative might be the weighted average of the revokes. So, A might get 2/5 of its equity for the 2 opposing revokes and 3/5 of its equity for its own 3 revokes. This way we avoid a weighted score. But that is not what the minute says ... From vip at centrum.is Wed Jun 22 20:36:29 2011 From: vip at centrum.is (vip at centrum.is) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:36:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <1923457320.6889201308767762658.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <575312221.6889251308767789097.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Trick 1. Declarers trick = 1-0 for E/W Trick 2. Revoke = that trick is transfered to N/S = 1-1 Trick 3. 2nd Revoke = Defence's trick = 2-1 for N/S. Law 64C Defence has now 2 tricks. Declarer 1 trick Trick 4-13 All trick to E/W Result = 11 tricks to E/W Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson ----- Upprunalegt skeyti ----- Fr?: "Peter Eidt" Til: "blml" Sent: Mi?vikudagur, 22. j?n?, 2011 08:21:59 GMT +00:00 Monrovia Efni: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 Hi Grattan & Herman, I do not understand the TD's and AC's decision and I can not live with it either. (see also bulletin no.5) 5 4 2 A K 10 2 Q 4 3 8 4 2 10 A K Q 9 8 3 Q J 6 5 3 4 K 6 5 2 J A K Q 9 7 6 5 3 J 7 6 9 8 7 A 10 9 8 7 J 10 East was declarer in 4 spades. Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. K clubs, East discarded his diamond. Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. South played A diamonds and after dummy followed suit, North called the TD. East made 12 tricks. The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64 C. Why ??? The reasoning of the AC showed that they considered the equity position for the second revoke as _after_ the first revoke (so to say: "what would be the outcome of the hand after revoking once and getting 1 rectification trick?") and not _immediately before_ the second revoke (so to say: "what would have happended, if the second revoke had not been committed?"). I thought it would be clear that Law 64 C does _not_ mean the equity of a hand prior to trick 1 but the equity to a hand (immediately) prior to (any of) the revoke(s). In the same sense the equity situation for the 2nd revoke is not the position after the 1st revoke, but the position immediately prior to the 2nd revoke (which is here only 2 cards later). Yes, here after the 1st revoke the rectification compensates the irregularity and Law 64 A2 gets us back to 11 tricks. But this does not mean that declarer now will change his play of the cards, does it? In fact he _did_ play the Q clubs and _if_ he had followed suit - a must - he would have ended with 10 tricks (a ruff, a heart and the rectification trick from above). And the AC expressly stated that he would have ended with 10 tricks, had the defending side called the TD before the 2nd revoke had been established. This declarer revokes once: ok, he gets 1 trick off, case exhausted. Then this declarer made a second revoke and _gained_ directly through it. (??) I cannot believe this to be the intention of the WBF LC. Maybe the wording of Minute ("If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke.") could have been better / clearer in saying "by reference to the position before the second revoke". ??Peter?? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 23 01:24:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:24:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: >..........542 >..........AKT2 >..........Q43 >..........842 >T....................AKQ983 >QJ653................4 >K652.................J >AKQ..................97653 >..........J76 >..........987 >..........AT987 >..........JT > >East was declarer in 4 spades. >Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. >K clubs, East discarded his diamond. >Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. >South played A diamonds and after dummy followed >suit, North called the TD. >East made 12 tricks. > >The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64C. >Why ??? Perhaps because it was the correct ruling? :-) :-) The declaring side moved from an outcome of 11 tricks to an outcome of 12 tricks via East's first revoke. But since West -- not East -- won the revoke trick, only one trick would have been transferred under Law 64A2, thus 11 tricks is the Law 64C equity for North- South at this time, after the first revoke. While East's second revoke was loser-on-loser, so normally the declaring side should move from an outcome of 11 tricks to an outcome of 10 tricks, with again one trick transferred under Law 64A2, in this case Law 64A2 is over-ruled by Law 64B2: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. Law 64C may apply." because both revokes were made following to dummy's same (club) suit. Hence, in my opinion, the Law 64C equity for North-South remains at 11 tricks. So in my opinion the Chief Director and the National Authority correctly interpreted the 2007 Lawbook and the 2008 WBF LC minute. But in my opinion it would be useful if an unambiguous version of the 2008 WBF LC minute (preferably incorporating an indicative example) was included in the 2016 Lawbook's version of Law 64C. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110622/6e0c9d65/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 23 01:59:20 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:59:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring (was Poznan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Paul Lamford >..... >Of course we could have a situation where both sides revoke >more than once. Indeed in the beginner class I taught this >was a regular occurrence. So, what happens if both sides >gain from their second revokes? We probably need a weighted >score with each side getting the lowest equity at any point >in the play. The alternative might be the weighted average >of the revokes. So, A might get 2/5 of its equity for the 2 >opposing revokes and 3/5 of its equity for its own 3 >revokes. This way we avoid a weighted score. But that is >not what the minute says ... Richard Hills The 2008 WBF LC minute applies only to the interaction between Law 64B2 and Law 64C. Either Paul Lamford is making a meretricious debating point by intentionally dragging in a Red Herring, or Paul Lamford (an EBU Grandmaster but not an EBU professional Director) is unawares of the existence of the new 2007 Law 64B7. Law 64B7 "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke: when both sides have revoked on the same board." However, a different WBF LC minute has clarified Law 64B7. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th September 2009, item 7 "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." Best wishes Richard Hills an ABF Grandmaster but not an ABF professional Director -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110622/49b089d9/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Thu Jun 23 07:41:28 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:41:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CDFF7F557C37EC-2200-2236A@Webmail-d109.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] So in my opinion the Chief Director and the National Authority correctly interpreted the 2007 Lawbook and the 2008 WBF LC minute. But in my opinion it would be useful if an unambiguous version of the 2008 WBFLC minute (preferably incorporating an indicative example) was included in the 2016 Lawbook's version of Law 64C. [Paul Lamford] You are mistaken. Both the TD and the AC incorrectly interpreted the 2008 WBF LC minute, in that the equity after the second revoke was 10 tricks, because that revoke was not established until the QC was led. In addition, if the second revoke actually gained a trick, then there is a routine Law 23 adjustment. From gampas at aol.com Thu Jun 23 07:51:59 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:51:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring (was Poznan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CDFF80CD510DEF-2200-2241A@Webmail-d109.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] The 2008 WBF LC minute applies only to the interaction between Law 64B2 and Law 64C. Either Paul Lamford is making a meretricious debating point by intentionally dragging in a Red Herring, or Paul Lamford (an EBU Grandmaster but not an EBU professional Director) is unawares of the existence of the new 2007 Law 64B7. [Paul Lamford] I would agree that the discussion of more than two revokes on one board, and, in particular, more than one revoke by each side, is a separate, (but not meretricious) debating point. Many have commented that the Laws are ill-equipped to deal with multiple infractions, and there should be a clause indicating in which order they are handled. However, I believe I am aware of all the relevant case Law, as it was published in the bulletin here at Poznan, excellently scribed by Herman de Wael. That does not mean the decision, despite Grattan's feeble protestations to the contrary, was remotely close to being correct. It was wrong on two counts. The equity after the first revoke was 10 tricks, because it was only the play of the queen of clubs which established the revoke. And I think only Herman disagrees that a Law 23 adjustment should be made if the infraction is not covered by 64B2 or 64C. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 23 09:23:35 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:23:35 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring (was Poznan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CDFF80CD510DEF-2200-2241A@Webmail-d109.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Paul Lamford >..... >That does not mean the decision, despite Grattan's feeble >protestations to the contrary, was remotely close to being >correct. It was wrong on two counts. The equity after the >first revoke was 10 tricks, because it was only the play of >the queen of clubs which established the revoke. >..... Richard Hills This point of Paul's is definitely not meretricious (my apologies for using that word in my previous post - my meretricious reason for me so doing is that I like obscure sesquipedalian words). Nor is it a Red Herring. Rather, it seems that we are having a philosophical dis- agreement over the nature of a revoke. In my opinion (and perhaps I misunderstand) Paul seems to be arguing that a revoke is spread over a trick-and-a-half, because a revoke is not established until half-a-trick after the revoke card is played. My differing feeble opinion (possibly shared by Grattan) is that a revoke is spread across a single trick, with perhaps that single trick -- and perhaps also a later trick -- being the initial rectification for an established revoke. With of course Law 64C being the secondary rectification. As support for my feeble protestations, I note that Law 64A refers to "THE trick", not to "ONE-AND-A-HALF tricks". Paul Lamford >..... >And I think only Herman disagrees that a Law 23 adjustment >should be made if the infraction is not covered by 64B2 or >64C. Richard Hills Another philosophical disagreement. I agree with Herman. In my opinion Law 64C is more specific than Law 23, so therefore Law 64C over-rules Law 23. Best wishes Socrates -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110623/749fc4df/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 23 09:41:02 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:41:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring (was Poznan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >..... >Another philosophical disagreement. > >I agree with Herman. In my opinion Law 64C is more specific >than Law 23, so therefore Law 64C over-rules Law 23. > >Best wishes > >Socrates In my opinion this point is moot. Law 23 refers to "damage" of the non-offending side and Law 64C uses the synonymous phrase, an "insufficiently compensated" non-offending side. Thus under both Laws 23 and 64C the Director considers -> Law 12B - Objectives of Score Adjustment 1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred ? but see C1(b). 2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Best wishes Plato -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110623/692b7eb6/attachment.html From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 10:50:13 2011 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:50:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: I never thought it could happen - Richard, Grattan and Herman all agreeing on a case? Ooops, talked too soon - Grattan does not agree with Richard, even though they arrive at the same conclusion. Herman Op 23 juni 2011 01:24 heeft het volgende geschreven: >>..........542 >>..........AKT2 >>..........Q43 >>..........842 >>T....................AKQ983 >>QJ653................4 >>K652.................J >>AKQ..................97653 >>..........J76 >>..........987 >>..........AT987 >>..........JT >> >>East was declarer in 4 spades. >>Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. >>K clubs, East discarded his diamond. >>Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. >>South played A diamonds and after dummy followed >>suit, North called the TD. >>East made 12 tricks. >> >>The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64C. >>Why ??? > > Perhaps because it was the correct ruling? :-) :-) > > The declaring side moved from an outcome of 11 tricks > to an outcome of 12 tricks via East's first revoke. > > But since West -- not East -- won the revoke trick, > only one trick would have been transferred under Law > 64A2, thus 11 tricks is the Law 64C equity for North- > South at this time, after the first revoke. > > While East's second revoke was loser-on-loser, so > normally the declaring side should move from an > outcome of 11 tricks to an outcome of 10 tricks, with > again one trick transferred under Law 64A2, in this > case Law 64A2 is over-ruled by Law 64B2: > > "There is no rectification as in A following an > established revoke: > if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the > same player. Law 64C may apply." > > because both revokes were made following to dummy's > same (club) suit. Hence, in my opinion, the Law 64C > equity for North-South remains at 11 tricks. > > So in my opinion the Chief Director and the National > Authority correctly interpreted the 2007 Lawbook and > the 2008 WBF LC minute. But in my opinion it would > be useful if an unambiguous version of the 2008 WBF > LC minute (preferably incorporating an indicative > example) was included in the 2016 Lawbook's version > of Law 64C. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 10:55:22 2011 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:55:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 Message-ID: Some people have interpreted Law 24 as meaning that, after playing the Queen of Clubs, East "could have known" that revoking by contributing the H4 rather than the C2 would work to his advantage. There seems to be nothing wrong with that, unless you look closer into the mindset of East: East did not play the CQ out of the blue and then start rummaging through his cards, hoping to find no clubs there. Rather, East performed one single action: that of discarding a heart on the CQ. Many declarers already have their discard in hand before they even call for the card from dummy. For this _one action_, Law 23 could apply, but if we assume East knew about his first revoke before playing the CQ, there are numerous other (legal) ways of arriving at 11 tricks. Herman. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Jun 23 11:46:27 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:46:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E030B73.3070706@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Some people have interpreted Law 24 as meaning that, after playing the > Queen of Clubs, East "could have known" that revoking by contributing > the H4 rather than the C2 would work to his advantage. > There seems to be nothing wrong with that, unless you look closer into > the mindset of East: > East did not play the CQ out of the blue and then start rummaging > through his cards, hoping to find no clubs there. > Rather, East performed one single action: that of discarding a heart > on the CQ. Many declarers already have their discard in hand before > they even call for the card from dummy. > For this _one action_, Law 23 could apply, but if we assume East knew > about his first revoke before playing the CQ, there are numerous other > (legal) ways of arriving at 11 tricks. poor of us who naively thought the revoke law was the last objective one remaining in TFLB! jpr > > Herman. -- _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 23 12:04:13 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:04:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/06/2011 10:55, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Some people have interpreted Law 24 as meaning that, after playing the > Queen of Clubs, East "could have known" that revoking by contributing > the H4 rather than the C2 would work to his advantage. > There seems to be nothing wrong with that, unless you look closer into > the mindset of East: > East did not play the CQ out of the blue and then start rummaging > through his cards, hoping to find no clubs there. > Rather, East performed one single action: that of discarding a heart > on the CQ. AG : that is indeed the interesting part. Herman rules on the basis of East's intentions. However, if we rule on the basis of the cards played, one can't help but realize that, had East followed suit (which the laws compel him to do), he would have collected 10 tricks. Whence the fact that East revoked helped him to an 11th trick, which should not be possible. According to you and Grattan, the combination of the law's wording and the normal interpretation of East's thoughts produces a dissatisfying result, and the fact that it is purely legal according to the minutes doesn't make it more satisfying. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 23 14:39:23 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:39:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ This feeling I understand, of course, but I am not permitted the luxury of interpreting the laws and minutes in a way to indulge my feelings. Until something changes I must ride with them as they are written. The NOS is entitled to Law 64C redress if the adjusted score is worse for them than the level that is set by the law and the minute. >----Original Message---- >From: agot at ulb.ac.be >Date: 23/06/2011 11:04 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 > > According to you and Grattan, the combination of the law's wording and the normal interpretation of East's thoughts produces a dissatisfying result, and the fact that it is purely legal according to the minutes doesn't make it more satisfying. > >Best regards > > > Alain > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 23 16:21:10 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:21:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 In-Reply-To: <002401cc30eb$0f00cbe0$2d0263a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1QZIhD-0Et7BI0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> <8CDFEF161C8CB42-1A88-9C9D8@webmail-m169.sysops.aol.com> <26841344.877471308752305887.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <002401cc30eb$0f00cbe0$2d0263a0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <19057569.999321308838870016.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Oh dear, Ton, That does sound a bit grumpy, but never mind. You are aware, of course, that I have confidence in my understanding of the English language in which I have been a practitioner, by profession, since 1941. Best regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ................................................. >----Original Message---- >From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl >Date: 22/06/2011 15:45 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] EC Poznan - Appeal No.4 > > > >+=+ No-one has authority to issue an official statement >on behalf of the committee unless the statement has the >prior approval of the committee. Any opinions I or Ton >may express are our own opinions and not attributable to >the committee corporately. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >Then it would have been nice to say more explicitly, I couldn't read it >implicitly even, that the interpretation as followed in Poznan is yours and >may be of other members of the AC but not that of the WBF LC, which you >dominantly tried to convince us about. > > >ton > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jun 23 16:36:12 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:36:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Red Herring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15667614.1000951308839772691.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Now that looks to me like a Rare Heading. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 24 00:21:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:21:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <15667614.1000951308839772691.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: >..........542 >..........AKT2 >..........Q43 >..........842 >T....................AKQ983 >QJ653................4 >K652.................J >AKQ..................97653 >..........J76 >..........987 >..........AT987 >..........JT > >East was declarer in 4 spades. >Lead J clubs, taking by the ace. >K clubs, East discarded his diamond. >Q clubs, East discarded his heart and South ruffed. >South played A diamonds and after dummy followed >suit, North called the TD. >East made 12 tricks. > >The TD and the AC adjusted to 11 tricks per Law 64C. Peter Eidt ..... yes, he had 11 tricks after the first revoke, but then he played the Queen of clubs and at this point he had only 10 tricks - as the AC correctly stated !! _Now_ this player revoked (again) and after this revoke became established, he suddenly had 11 tricks again (at least according to the AC). In my world this is directly gaining through the 2nd revoke. ..... Richard Hills In my world "_unintentionally_ avoiding an excessive mechanical penalty" lacks a one-to-one correspondence with "directly gaining through the 2nd revoke". In my world Law 23 states, "...gained an advantage through the irregularity", but does NOT say "must have perpetrated an irregularity because she gained an advantage". In my world the question is one of carts and horses. Law 23 cannot apply unless the Director decides that there was a _relevant_ prior infraction. So my personal Red Herring in this case is Law 72B3. Law 72B3 A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. Richard Hills _After_ dummy's queen of clubs was played, but _before_ declarer revoked for the second time, it is possible that declarer realised the first revoke, so infracted Law 72B3 to gain 11 tricks instead of 10. If so, Law 23 should be applied to Law 72B3 and the score should be adjusted back from 11 tricks to 10. But, "as the AC correctly stated !!", the balance of probabilities mitigates against a Law 72B3 infraction, hence Law 23 cannot be triggered, unless one puts the cart before the horse. Best wishes Steptoe and Son -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110623/00e428f1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jun 24 08:42:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:42:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford >..... >The Chief TD should have accepted the advice of his >colleagues, the majority of whom I know told him he was >wrong. Richard Hills That Poznan Director in charge (Chief Director) was not merely primus inter pares amongst his fellow Directors. Rather, technically the colleagues of the Poznan Director in charge (Chief Director) were lowly Assistant Directors under Law 81D. Law 81D - Delegation of Duties The Director may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but he is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance. Richard Hills Thus while the Poznan Director in charge (Chief Director) had both the right and responsibility to reverse any and all errors of his Assistant Directors, vice versa did not apply. The only body with the power to reverse the Poznan Director in charge (Chief Director) on a point of Law was the Poznan Regulating Authority (National Authority). And the Poznan Regulating Authority (National Authority) said wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar?ber muss man schweigen -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110624/edaf85e8/attachment-0001.html From gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 24 09:11:36 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:11:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> [grattan] +=+ This feeling I understand, of course, but I am not permitted the luxury of interpreting the laws and minutes in a way to indulge my feelings. Until something changes I must ride with them as they are written. The NOS is entitled to Law 64C redress if the adjusted score is worse for them than the level that is set by the law and the minute. [paul lamford] Let us accept for now that there is a fault with the current wording of the minute, and I agree with many that it requires rewriting for clarification, although its intent is clear: jhenrikj (from another forum): "Ton Koiijman made this very clear in San Remo. When applying 64C to the second revoke, equity is the result that would have been if the second revoke never took place. " One still has the overriding principle in Law 23 that one must not be allowed to gain from an infraction, deliberate or accidental. So, In my opinion, you wrongly advised the AC, whether you were there as a consultant, observer or "legal" adviser. When I pointed out faults in the wording of Law 16B in the past, you drew attention to the catchall facility of Law 73. You should have done similarly in this incident. From gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 24 09:34:21 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:34:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be><23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CE005844CD8721-10FC-66F4@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] I agree with Herman. In my opinion Law 64C is more specific than Law 23, so therefore Law 64C over-rules Law 23. [Paul Lamford] Firstly, I shall not reply to any thread which has been started by Richard with a different title on the same subject. However, the above is illogical. The purpose of Law 23 is to catch infractions that are not covered by a specific Law, and, in my opinion, over-rules and qualifies all Laws. "Thou shall not cheat" - whether accidentally or not - is the first commandment. Well, the second one. We are told the first one is : "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws." But this overriding obligation is breached many times by people - accidentally usually. Another Law (73B2) states: "The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws." Here we would be correctly quick to punish someone for a breach of this Law, regardless of whether their actions conformed to a more specific Law, especially if they found a loophole. I my opinion all the Laws have to be read together, and Law 23 (and Law 73B2) are the most important two, which override all other Laws. They were adequate to deal with the infraction in Poznan. But they were applied wrongly. And for that the Chief TD was mainly to blame. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 10:35:48 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 03:35:48 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <8CE005844CD8721-10FC-66F4@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <8CE005844CD8721-10FC-66F4@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: [Richard Hills] In my opinion Law 64C is more specific than Law 23, so therefore Law 64C over-rules Law 23. [Paul Lamford] However, the above is illogical. The purpose of Law 23 is to catch infractions that are not covered by a specific Law, and, in my opinion, over-rules and qualifies all Laws. [Jerry Fusselman] Almost every law pertaining to irregularities has more-specific scope than Law 23, so Law 23 would have little or no effect if it was correct to apply Richard's ad hoc rule to determine the scope of Law 23. Therefore, Paul is right, and Law 23 has full scope. Rather nice, because that is what Law 23 says. Paul's appraisal of the scope of Laws 23 and 73B2 seems perfect to me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110624/53053c3c/attachment.html From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jun 24 13:04:06 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:04:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001801cc325e$70578400$51068c00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> According to you and Grattan, the combination of the law's wording and the normal interpretation of East's thoughts produces a dissatisfying result, and the fact that it is purely legal according to the minutes doesn't make it more satisfying. Best regards Alain ton: It isn't purely legal according to the minutes. We can't just separate a sentence from the content. And the content was a discussion in the laws committee. And there it was completely clear what we wanted to say and do. Applying law 64C in case of a second not to be penalized revoke has to happen looking at the second revoke standing on its own. Which means that the second revoke is made and then the TD has to decide whether without such revoke the opponents would have made more tricks then they really made. Of course not by ignoring or changing the play before the moment of the revoke. (Another way to do it is deciding what the equity result (64C) on the board is and then to award that result if the penalty for the first revoke doesn't give enough compensation, as we do if only one revoke occurs. Those were the possibilities we discussed) That is what the LC decided. Now the secretary wrote this down in the minutes and I was not able then to understand the crooky way (defining 'after' as 'immediately after' and then suggesting that somebody not agreeing doesn't understand the English language) in which this could be read years later by somebody who apparently forgot these discussions or didn't understand what was done then. ton From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 13:57:40 2011 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:57:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <4e046f42.127d0e0a.6525.ffffc690SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <4e046f42.127d0e0a.6525.ffffc690SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Op 24 juni 2011 13:04 heeft ton het volgende geschreven: > > > It isn't purely legal according to the minutes. We can't just separate a > sentence from the content. And the content was a discussion in the laws > committee. And there it was completely clear what we wanted to say and do. > Applying law 64C in case of a second not to be penalized revoke has to > happen looking at the second revoke standing on its own. Which means that > the second revoke is made and then the TD has to decide whether without such > revoke the opponents would have made more tricks then they really made. Of > course not by ignoring or changing the play before the moment of the revoke. > > > (Another way to do it is deciding what the equity result (64C) on the board > is and then to award that result if the penalty for the first revoke doesn't > give enough compensation, as we do if only one revoke occurs. Those were the > possibilities we discussed) > > That is what the LC decided. Now the secretary wrote this down in the > minutes and I was not able then to understand the crooky way (defining > 'after' as 'immediately after' and then suggesting that somebody not > agreeing doesn't understand the English language) in which this could be > read years later by somebody who apparently forgot these discussions or > didn't understand what was done then. > > ton > Ton (and Grattan) need to realize that the minute was not made to solve this particular problem, but a more general one. Imagine a case where a first revoke does not gain a trick, but does cost a penalty trick. While a second revoke gains two tricks, but of course does not cost a penalty. NOW the minute is needed, since the equity value between the two revokes is less than the equity value prior to the first revoke, and there needs to be some agreement as to whether it is the first equity or the second one which is intended in L64C. It is clear that the second equity value is the one which is needed. This case is totally different, since the equity values before and after the first revoke are the same. It is only between the start of the revoke trick, and the actual revoke on that same trick, that a difference in equity starts. Declarer here started a play which cost her a trick, then completed the play by revoking and recovering that same trick. The minute was never intended for this case and should not be parsed to the letter upon it. Please note that minutes are not laws. The laws have been circulated and commented upon before being finally put to paper. When they are published, they become fixed, and one can try and discuss them as such. The minutes are being written by Grattan and checked only perfunctorily. One should not use them lliterally. I think the discussion on Law 23 is more interesting here. I believe L23 applies, but I think we should be lenient in allowing declarer only one single "thinking moment", during which she chose to discard a heart on the CQ, not two - one during which she decided to play clubs, and one in which she decided to revoke. She never made that second choice and it is ludicrous to imagine she might have. Herman. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jun 24 14:40:24 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:40:24 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <8CE005844CD8721-10FC-66F4@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <201106241240.p5OCeUNe030365@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 06:35 PM 24/06/2011, you wrote: >[Richard Hills] In my opinion Law 64C is more specific than Law >23, so therefore Law 64C over-rules Law 23. > >[Paul Lamford] However, >the above is illogical. The purpose of Law 23 is to catch infractions >that are not covered by a specific Law, and, in my opinion, over-rules >and qualifies all Laws. > >[Jerry Fusselman] Almost every law pertaining to irregularities has >more-specific scope than Law 23, so Law 23 would have little or no >effect if it was correct to apply Richard's ad hoc rule to determine >the scope of Law 23. Therefore, Paul is right, and Law 23 has full >scope. Rather nice, because that is what Law 23 says. > >Paul's appraisal of the scope of Laws 23 and 73B2 seems perfect to me. Some time ago I bid L23 on another matter, and I think maybe Robert wished to overcall me with a more specific law. When I bid L23 I think that is the end of the auction. Herman apparently believes you are allowed to be lenient if you think there was no intent to be naughty, but I don't think so. Cheers Tony (Sydney) what makes L23 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 24 15:05:15 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:05:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <001801cc325e$70578400$51068c00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <001801cc325e$70578400$51068c00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <31574110.1115871308920715731.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ I suppose the nature of the problem is cultural. I am unable to speak as to the Dutch inheritance but only as to the approach to legislation in the United Kingdom. In my experience of negotiation with United Kingdom legislative authorities (i.e. Parliamentary draftsmen) the law has to be written so as to be read in the terms in which it is expressed and not by reference to any alleged past intent of the legislative body. One assumes that what is written is what was intended, but I concede there is a difficulty internationally of misunderstandings which can arise when an important assenter to the composed text does not have English English as his or her first language. (It is very easy to fall into a trap where there are differences of meaning between my native language and American English.) I accept that I can kick myself for not having my eyes sufficiently open at the time to enquire whether what was being minuted was really what was wanted. The committee will no doubt find a moment to discuss the subject when it meets. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ......................................................... >----Original Message---- >From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl >Date: 24/06/2011 12:04 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 > > >According to you and Grattan, the combination of the law's wording and >the normal interpretation of East's thoughts produces a dissatisfying >result, and the fact that it is purely legal according to the minutes >doesn't make it more satisfying. > > >Best regards > > > Alain > > >ton: > >It isn't purely legal according to the minutes. We can't just separate a >sentence from the content. And the content was a discussion in the laws >committee. And there it was completely clear what we wanted to say and do. >Applying law 64C in case of a second not to be penalized revoke has to >happen looking at the second revoke standing on its own. Which means that >the second revoke is made and then the TD has to decide whether without such >revoke the opponents would have made more tricks then they really made. Of >course not by ignoring or changing the play before the moment of the revoke. > > >(Another way to do it is deciding what the equity result (64C) on the board >is and then to award that result if the penalty for the first revoke doesn't >give enough compensation, as we do if only one revoke occurs. Those were the >possibilities we discussed) > >That is what the LC decided. Now the secretary wrote this down in the >minutes and I was not able then to understand the crooky way (defining >'after' as 'immediately after' and then suggesting that somebody not >agreeing doesn't understand the English language) in which this could be >read years later by somebody who apparently forgot these discussions or >didn't understand what was done then. > >ton > > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 24 15:45:41 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:45:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:11 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > One still has the overriding principle in Law 23 that one must not be > allowed to gain from an infraction, deliberate or accidental. So, > In my > opinion, you wrongly advised the AC, whether you were there as a > consultant, observer or "legal" adviser. I take strong exception to this statement. The overriding principle in L23 is *not* "that one must not be allowed to gain from an[y] infraction, deliberate or accidental." The overriding principle in L23 is that one must not be allowed to gain from any infraction "whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side". Just like it says. As I made clear in a recent thread, I find it absurd that L23 should be interpreted in such a way that the phrases "in the opinion of the Director" and "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" are superfluous and unnecessary words with no bearing on the meaning of the law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Fri Jun 24 17:27:06 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:27:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <4e046f42.127d0e0a.6525.ffffc690SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <000901cc3283$2e398d50$8aaca7f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Ton (and Grattan) need to realize that the minute was not made to solve this particular problem, but a more general one. ----ton: ah, now we even have someone who was not involved in the decision taken telling us what we meant to do. Imagine a case where a first revoke does not gain a trick, but does cost a penalty trick. While a second revoke gains two tricks, but of course does not cost a penalty. NOW the minute is needed, since the equity value between the two revokes is less than the equity value prior to the first revoke, and there needs to be some agreement as to whether it is the first equity or the second one which is intended in L64C. ----ton: there is no such thing intended in L64C, that is why we needed to make this decision. And in your case above thus decision means that the non offenders get two tricks for the second revoke plus the penalty trick. It is clear that the second equity value is the one which is needed. This case is totally different, ----ton: no it is not!!! The offending side gained one trick by the second revoke. since the equity values before and after the first revoke are the same. It is only between the start of the revoke trick, and the actual revoke on that same trick, that a difference in equity starts. Declarer here started a play which cost her a trick, then completed the play by revoking and recovering that same trick. The minute was never intended for this case and should not be parsed to the letter upon it. ----ton: this is nonsense, another loosing trick to avoid admitting that a wrong decision was taken. The minute was made also for this case. Assume: heart contract; declarer plays a spade from his hand and ruffs in dummy, while there is still a visible spade there, opponents don't say anything play continues. Declarer makes one trick more than without this revoke. TD's up till now award one trick to the non offending side. This appeal committee told the whole world that this is wrong, we need deep finesse telling us what the result on this board is without playing this spade from declarer's hand. ton Please note that minutes are not laws. The laws have been circulated and commented upon before being finally put to paper. When they are published, they become fixed, and one can try and discuss them as such. The minutes are being written by Grattan and checked only perfunctorily. One should not use them lliterally. I think the discussion on Law 23 is more interesting here. I believe L23 applies, but I think we should be lenient in allowing declarer only one single "thinking moment", during which she chose to discard a heart on the CQ, not two - one during which she decided to play clubs, and one in which she decided to revoke. She never made that second choice and it is ludicrous to imagine she might have. Herman. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1388 / Virusdatabase: 1513/3723 - datum van uitgifte: 06/24/11 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jun 24 17:39:18 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:39:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> >----Original Message---- >From: ehaa at starpower.net >Date: 24/06/2011 14:45 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 > >On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:11 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> One still has the overriding principle in Law 23 that one must not be >> allowed to gain from an infraction, deliberate or accidental. So, >> In my >> opinion, you wrongly advised the AC, whether you were there as a >> consultant, observer or "legal" adviser. > >I take strong exception to this statement. The overriding principle >in L23 is *not* "that one must not be allowed to gain from an[y] >infraction, deliberate or accidental." The overriding principle in >L23 is that one must not be allowed to gain from any infraction >"whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have >been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well >damage the non-offending side". Just like it says. > >As I made clear in a recent thread, I find it absurd that L23 should >be interpreted in such a way that the phrases "in the opinion of the >Director" and "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" >are superfluous and unnecessary words with no bearing on the meaning >of the law. > > >Eric Landau > +=+ My consistent theme in this topic has been that we have to read a law or regulation as it is written and not as we would like it to have been written or according to what we thought it meant when we wrote it. There are situations in which Law 10C4 may contribute something to the principle. Gampas is imbued with a strong sense of the injustice inflicted in this case by applying the law as the minute instructs, yet however diadvantageous in its effect, application of its rules constitutes for any game justice by definition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jun 24 18:32:28 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:32:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <4E04BC1C.1080708@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/06/2011 17:39, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk a ?crit : > > +=+ My consistent theme in this topic has been that we have to read > a law or regulation as it is written and not as we would like it to > have been written or according to what we thought it meant when we > wrote it. There are situations in which Law 10C4 may contribute > something to the principle. > Gampas is imbued with a strong sense of the injustice inflicted > in this case by applying the law as the minute instructs, yet however > diadvantageous in its effect, application of its rules constitutes > for any game justice by definition. AG : but there is one law that applies whenever application of any other law creates a *previsible* unfair effect which helps the OS. That's L23. Applying this law in many cases of apparent injustice would be justice, by your own argument. Now, whether L23 should be applied to the 'in-between time' is an interesting matter and I'm not sure about the answer, but disregarding it because it hasn't been written to cancel injustice is wrong. It has. Best regards Alain From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 19:58:50 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:58:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > The overriding principle in > L23 is that one must not be allowed to gain from any infraction > "whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have > been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well > damage the non-offending side". ?Just like it says. > > As I made clear in a recent thread, I find it absurd that L23 should > be interpreted in such a way that the phrases "in the opinion of the > Director" and "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" > are superfluous and unnecessary words with no bearing on the meaning > of the law. > The director's opinion is needed to determine whether the irregularity and its standard rectification together causes a net expected loss to the NOS. "Could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" refers to all the information available to him at that time, and it absolves the director from trying to determine if the player *was* aware. To read it Eric's way, change "could have" to "was". That would be perfect for Eric's interpretation---right? Can Eric explain why "could have" is in the law rather than "was"? Jerry Fusselman From gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 24 21:39:33 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:39:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be><23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost><8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <8CE00BD93F8F7C5-1808-BAED@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> [grattan] Gampas is imbued with a strong sense of the injustice inflicted in this case by applying the law as the minute instructs, yet however diadvantageous [sic] in its effect, application of its rules constitutes for any game justice by definition. [paul lamford] I am not familiar with "diadvantageous" - perhaps I have not taught English enough - but I have no problem in adopting one of the possible interpretations of the minute, in that "after the first revoke" can be interpreted many ways. I think Ton is right that "without subsequent revokes" is correct. But it was the failure to apply Law 23 which I found unjust, in that it was a Cheat's Charter. Eric [Landau] is correct that "in the opinion of the TD" and "could have known" are pre-requisites. My friend from Rome, Struthio Camellus was unaware that there has been considerable debate in football [soccer for Americans] as to why the referee fails to award a goal when "in the opinion of the referee" the "whole of the ball has not crossed the line". Other than corruption or bribery, which I am sure is not present in bridge, this is because we rely on the opinion of the TD to make logical decisions agreed with by the majority. If the TD is of the opinion, in this case, that the player could not be aware that the second revoke could benefit her, then I think he is executing very poor judgement. As the Chairman of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee put it (on this case): "I confess I suggested to the appellant that the committee would need to be clinically insane not to overturn the TD's decision. I'm not convinced I was wrong about this!" From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jun 24 22:16:45 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:16:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Jun 24, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> The overriding principle in >> L23 is that one must not be allowed to gain from any infraction >> "whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have >> been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well >> damage the non-offending side". Just like it says. >> >> As I made clear in a recent thread, I find it absurd that L23 should >> be interpreted in such a way that the phrases "in the opinion of the >> Director" and "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" >> are superfluous and unnecessary words with no bearing on the meaning >> of the law. > > The director's opinion is needed to determine whether the irregularity > and its standard rectification together causes a net expected loss to > the NOS. "Could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" > refers to all the information available to him at that time, and it > absolves the director from trying to determine if the player *was* > aware. > > To read it Eric's way, change "could have" to "was". That is not correct. To read it my way, change "whenever... could have been aware" to "unless... could not have been aware". > That would be > perfect for Eric's interpretation---right? Can Eric explain why > "could have" is in the law rather than "was"? Because the opposite of "could have been" -- that which would make L23 inapplicable -- is "could not have been", not "was not". I would expect someone who has a distaste for "mind reading" to appreciate the difference better than most. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 24 22:46:09 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:46:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be><23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost><8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CE00C6E177D3E7-B94-554@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] Because the opposite of "could have been" -- that which would make L23 inapplicable -- is "could not have been", not "was not". I would expect someone who has a distaste for "mind reading" to appreciate the difference better than most. [Paul Lamford] I agree that if it is decided the player could not have been aware that the infraction would benefit him, there is no L23 adjustment. With a revoke, the player always "could have been aware". With a bid out of turn, there will indeed be situations where it is just rub of the green - although the laws do deal separateley with an enforced pass that damages the non-offenders. An insufficient bid which happens to gain will sometimes fall foul of L23. As will a BIT in a KJ guess or similar. That is for the TD to judge; but he should always rule that a defender could have been aware a revoke might gain if it does. At least the good TD should so rule, in my opinion. From gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 24 22:56:04 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be><23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost><8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <8CE00C84454E47B-B94-76B@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> [grattan] There are situations in which Law 10C4 may contribute something to the principle. [paul lamford] There are, but it is important to note that Laws 27D and 50E3 permit the TD to award an adjusted score when the NOS is damaged by the infraction. Here it is clear that the second revoke damaged the NOS, and you are just weakening, not strengthening, your argument by quoting 10C4. Why don't you just admit you made an error, instead of continually wriggling? From gampas at aol.com Fri Jun 24 23:02:12 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:02:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <8CE00C6E177D3E7-B94-554@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be><23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost><8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <8CE00C6E177D3E7-B94-554@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CE00C91FD90DB3-B94-89E@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> S 2 H A654 D 10987 C A1065 S AQJ10987 S 6543 H 987 H KQJ D none D J65 C 987 C KQJ S K H 1032 D AKQ432 C 432 I had the pleasure of playing in The Poznan Pig's Ear Pairs last night, sponsored by Polish Pork Produce. It was an event for unqualified directors and other invited players, and much of the discussion as we gathered was about RRR - the Riccardi Revoke Ruling. There was a a rumour that some of the novitiate from the Catholic Directing Monastery in Warsaw would deliberately revoke to test out the Beijing minute, but they assured me that this was not the case. On the above hand, South, who bore a remarkable resemblance to the Rueful Rabbit, tried a "gambling 3NT" on the first round - he had seen Cronier try it from the bulletin, and he stood it when it was doubled, by West, who had opened a constructive weak two in spades. RR actually had a club with the king of spades, but noticed it when West led the queen of spades. Unfortunately, he also then replaced the king of spades with his clubs. West, an Armenian visitor, led the queen of spades and was surprised when South discarded a small club, especially as his partner showed an even number. Nevertheless he continued with the jack of spades, on which North and South discarded clubs, and then he played the ten of spades, on which North threw a heart and South another club. West, confident that his partner, who closely resembled the Secretary Bird, would overtake and play one back, continued with the nine of spades. RR threw a diamond from dummy, and was about to throw another club from hand, when he discovered the king of spades, which he originally knew he had, lurking among the clubs. RR was used to calling the TD for his many infractions and did so, but OO, standing in as the chief TD, asked that play continue, and none of the three revokes could be corrected, but on this trick RR could - indeed must - win it with the king of spades. Somewhat flustered, the Rabbit cashed the ace of diamonds, and was disappointed to note that they had broken 4-0 (he had forgotten about his earlier diamond discard from dummy). But he did work out to cross to dummy with the ace of hearts and take the marked diamond finesse. He ran all the diamonds, and when East threw all his hearts, RR tried to throw him in with the ten of hearts to lead into the A10 of clubs, only to find that it held the trick, and he made 10 tricks. Oscar the Owl had the Beijing minute to hand, and could see that the equity before the first revoke was 7 tricks, and that dropped to 6 tricks for trick 2 and 3. As these were subsequent revokes in the same suit, and the offender did not win the trick, and the second and third revokes did not increase the declarer's equity - however one read the Beijing minute - there was no further adjustment, and there was thus only one trick deducted from the 10 that RR had made. Oscar commented "Unusual hand; it needs 3 revokes, a miscount in diamonds and a Vienna Coup to make 3NT", but SB, East, was unhappy. He cited Law 23 verbatim and argued that RR could have known that revoking three times would rectify the count for the squeeze against himself, and assist in unblocking the diamonds. North, who looked a little like the Hideous Hog, and was on a sponsor's invite, testing out the free sausages, disagreed: "The last time there was a blockage in the toilets downstairs, RR did not notice it, which is part of the reason he gets the sobriquet 'Rueful'", he commented. "And in any case, should not West have cashed the ace of spades at trick 4, on which his partner would know to unblock the king if he had it? To not guard against South revoking three times was an error, and with the Rabbit as South, it would be classed as a SEWOG", he claimed. "And as far for the idea that RR could have been aware of anything, that concept is ludicrous." Oscar, the TD, did not totally agree with this, but was still wondering whether RR "could have been aware" his multiple infractions could benefit him. And whether it was relevant what ability RR had. He thought the purpose of Law 23 was to punish any infraction which the most perspicacious of players could have been aware might benefit them. How would you rule? From vip at centrum.is Fri Jun 24 23:27:30 2011 From: vip at centrum.is (=?utf-8?Q?Vigf=C3=BAs_P=C3=A1lsson?=) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:27:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Mixed boards from Iceland In-Reply-To: <1505994934.7172281308950807943.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <1885594537.7172331308950850023.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> All the players are advanced. Not experts. Teams. VUL: None Dealer West Contr. 4 hearts. 6 tricks >>>>>>>>>North >>>>>>>>>A97 >>>>>>>>>9543 >>>>>>>>>J >>>>>>>>>109863 West>>>>>>>>>>>>>>East A5432>>>>>>>>>>>>>10 KQJ53>>>>>>>>>>>>>84 8>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>QJ105 94>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AKQ752 >>>>>>>>>South >>>>>>>>>KQJ87 >>>>>>>>>A9 >>>>>>>>>K7642 >>>>>>>>>8 West>>>>North>>>East>>>>South 2C(1)>>>Pass>>>>2NT>>>>>3S Db(2)>>>Pass>>>>4C(3)>>>Pass 4H>>>>>>All Pass 1.Weak majors or weak diamond 2.Suggests penalty 3.East was not certains about the meaning of the double North leads diamond Jack. Dummy calls TD and does not put his cards on the table. North is still holding the cards from the last board, and of course he does not realise that. I found the correct cards and gave them to north. They were? S 96 H 10762 D A93 C J1063 I asked the players to show me the bidding sequence. I took North away from the table and asked him if he would have bid differently with the new cards. He said no. I ruled that North should make a new opening lead. The only unouthorised information at the table was the existence of the diamond J in Easts hand. Law 17D2 and 17D3 not fit here. But I remembered that in San Remo we were told that TD should try to have the boards played if possible. Also in the foreword of the 2007 laws, there is written? ?They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged? In this case, the non-offending side was not damaged by the irregularity. I feel I made a fair and right ruling but I can not find a place for my ruling in the laws. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson From gampas at aol.com Sat Jun 25 00:05:23 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:05:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mixed boards from Iceland In-Reply-To: <1885594537.7172331308950850023.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: <8CE00D1F34F0906-B94-1147@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> [Vigfus Palsson] Subject: [BLML] Mixed boards from Iceland All the players are advanced. Not experts. Teams. VUL: None Dealer West Contr. 4 hearts. 6 tricks >>>>>>>>>North >>>>>>>>>A97 >>>>>>>>>9543 >>>>>>>>>J >>>>>>>>>109863 West>>>>>>>>>>>>>>East A5432>>>>>>>>>>>>>10 KQJ53>>>>>>>>>>>>>84 8>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>QJ105 94>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AKQ752 >>>>>>>>>South >>>>>>>>>KQJ87 >>>>>>>>>A9 >>>>>>>>>K7642 >>>>>>>>>8 West>>>>North>>>East>>>>South 2C(1)>>>Pass>>>>2NT>>>>>3S Db(2)>>>Pass>>>>4C(3)>>>Pass 4H>>>>>>All Pass 1.Weak majors or weak diamond 2.Suggests penalty 3.East was not certains about the meaning of the double North leads diamond Jack. Dummy calls TD and does not put his cards on the table. North is still holding the cards from the last board, and of course he does not realise that. I found the correct cards and gave them to north. They were? S 96 H 10762 D A93 C J1063 I asked the players to show me the bidding sequence. I took North away from the table and asked him if he would have bid differently with the new cards. He said no. I ruled that North should make a new opening lead. The only unouthorised information at the table was the existence of the diamond J in Easts hand. Law 17D2 and 17D3 not fit here. But I remembered that in San Remo we were told that TD should try to have the boards played if possible. Also in the foreword of the 2007 laws, there is written? ?They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged? In this case, the non-offending side was not damaged by the irregularity. I feel I made a fair and right ruling but I can not find a place for my ruling in the laws. Greetings from Iceland Vigfus Palsson [paul lamford] It seems to be too late once the offender's partner has called over the cancelled call: 17D2 After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender?s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender?s substituted call differs4 from his cancelled call (offender?s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender?s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call. This makes sense as well. The player has UI and will be able to produce the same auction if he chooses and not do so if he does not. So, I think one just applies 17D2. But I have no special knowledge other than what I read in the Laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 25 02:03:12 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:03:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:39:18 -0400, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > >> ----Original Message---- >> From: ehaa at starpower.net >> Date: 24/06/2011 14:45 >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Subj: Re: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 >> >> On Jun 24, 2011, at 3:11 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: >> >>> One still has the overriding principle in Law 23 that one must not be >>> allowed to gain from an infraction, deliberate or accidental. So, >>> In my >>> opinion, you wrongly advised the AC, whether you were there as a >>> consultant, observer or "legal" adviser. >> >> I take strong exception to this statement. The overriding principle >> in L23 is *not* "that one must not be allowed to gain from an[y] >> infraction, deliberate or accidental." The overriding principle in >> L23 is that one must not be allowed to gain from any infraction >> "whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have >> been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well >> damage the non-offending side". Just like it says. >> >> As I made clear in a recent thread, I find it absurd that L23 should >> be interpreted in such a way that the phrases "in the opinion of the >> Director" and "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity" >> are superfluous and unnecessary words with no bearing on the meaning >> of the law. >> >> > +=+ My consistent theme in this topic has been that we have to read > a law or regulation as it is written and not as we would like it to > have been written or according to what we thought it meant when we > wrote it. There are situations in which Law 10C4 may contribute > something to the principle. > Gampas is imbued with a strong sense of the injustice inflicted > in this case by applying the law as the minute instructs, yet however > diadvantageous in its effect, application of its rules constitutes > for any game justice by definition. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It seems obvious that "after the first revoke" was a careless error by the WBFLC and cannot be taken seriously. Equity is *always* determined from the point just before the irregularity, which in this case is just before the second revoke. The sentence: "If there are two revokes on the same board the equity in the case of the second revoke is determined by reference to the position after the first revoke. Proof: Declarer is on track to make 9 or 10 tricks, depending on whether or not he finds the queen of spades. He revokes in a suit, in a way that does not affect the play. He will revoke again in that suit. What is equity? If you take the WBFLC minute seriously, it must be determined by the position now. It seems ridiculous to me to even try to answer the question. Anyway, either answer leads to serious problems: If the answer is 8. Declarer finds the queen of spades, makes a revoke that makes no difference in play, but loses a trick on the revoke to "equity". If the answer is 9. Declarer doesn't find the queen of spades, makes a revoke that gains a trick, and gets to keep the gained trick. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Jun 25 02:34:30 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:34:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] let her withdraw her card? Message-ID: Declarer has good clubs in dummy and the losing king of diamonds. He plays a club from his hand, and I think before he can even call for a card from dummy, RHO plays her ace of diamonds. Declarer, either during this trick or before has said "Ah, a singleton king." He was referring to the club suit. But RHO obvious thought he meant that the singleton king should be played from dummy. She even has clubs; in any case, she has absolutely no reason to pitch the ace of diamonds looking at the king in dummy and having other trash she can throw. How do you rule? Is it obvious? Declarer is allowed to make gratuitous comments, but is declarer allowed to freely make gratuitous comments that can be interpreted as calls for a card from the dummy? At the time I was conceding that RHO was not paying sufficient attention. Now I am not sure, because from her perspective the play of the hand can be reduced to "play my ace of diamonds on the king." If the statement "Ah, a singleton king" occurred before he led the club from hand, then "singleton king" could be construed as leading from the wrong hand and RHO's play as accepting that lead. But I think this just goes back to the same problem. To me, it is a tough ruling and anything should be accepted graciously. And too confusing for the rule book to cover? I decided that declarer was the offending side, making a gratuitous comment that could be and was construed as a play from dummy. So I let her withdraw her ace of diamonds. This is not high-level play. It is just a club game. From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 25 04:53:33 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:53:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <000901cc3283$2e398d50$8aaca7f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <4e046f42.127d0e0a.6525.ffffc690SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <000901cc3283$2e398d50$8aaca7f0$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "ton" Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 10:27 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 > > > Ton (and Grattan) need to realize that the minute was not made to > solve this particular problem, but a more general one. > > ----ton: ah, now we even have someone who was not involved in the decision > taken telling us what we meant to do. > > Imagine a case where a first revoke does not gain a trick, but does > cost a penalty trick. While a second revoke gains two tricks, but of > course does not cost a penalty. NOW the minute is needed, since the > equity value between the two revokes is less than the equity value > prior to the first revoke, and there needs to be some agreement as to > whether it is the first equity or the second one which is intended in > L64C. > > ----ton: there is no such thing intended in L64C, that is why we needed to > make this decision. And in your case above thus decision means that the > non > offenders get two tricks for the second revoke plus the penalty trick. > > It is clear that the second equity value is the one which is > needed. > > This case is totally different, > > ----ton: no it is not!!! The offending side gained one trick by the > second > revoke. > > since the equity values before and > after the first revoke are the same. It is only between the start of > the revoke trick, and the actual revoke on that same trick, that a > difference in equity starts. Declarer here started a play which cost > her a trick, then completed the play by revoking and recovering that > same trick. The minute was never intended for this case and should not > be parsed to the letter upon it. > > ----ton: this is nonsense, another loosing trick to avoid admitting that a > wrong decision was taken. The minute was made also for this case. > Assume: heart contract; declarer plays a spade from his hand and ruffs > in > dummy, while there is still a visible spade there, opponents don't say > anything play continues. Declarer makes one trick more than without this > revoke. TD's up till now award one trick to the non offending side. This > appeal committee told the whole world that this is wrong, we need deep > finesse telling us what the result on this board is without playing this > spade from declarer's hand. ton > > > Please note that minutes are not laws. The laws have been circulated > and commented upon before being finally put to paper. When they are > published, they become fixed, and one can try and discuss them as > such. The minutes are being written by Grattan and checked only > perfunctorily. One should not use them lliterally. > > I think the discussion on Law 23 is more interesting here. I believe > L23 applies, but I think we should be lenient in allowing declarer > only one single "thinking moment", during which she chose to discard a > heart on the CQ, not two - one during which she decided to play clubs, > and one in which she decided to revoke. She never made that second > choice and it is ludicrous to imagine she might have. > > Herman. Something I find indeed curious. I have noticed at least one person that has provided no less than three different formulations for equity. I still am scratching my head trying to reconcile how one entity can have three different formulations- as in, isn't it necessary to have exactly one formulation? Yet, what is curious is the person is able to provide three formulations while law gives no formulation whatsoever upon which to test this person's assertion. So, it may well be that of the three presented one might be found that indeed is equity, or then again, might none of them. regards roger pewick From yuen.sebastian at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 07:36:48 2011 From: yuen.sebastian at gmail.com (Sebastian) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:36:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <4e046f42.127d0e0a.6525.ffffc690SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 25 June 2011 12:53, Roger Pewick wrote: > > Something I find indeed curious. I have noticed at least one person that > has provided no less than three different formulations for equity. I still > am scratching my head trying to reconcile how one entity can have three > different formulations- as in, isn't it necessary to have exactly one > formulation? > One of the points that struck me upon reading the original bulletin -- I apologise if this has been brought up already -- was that 64C does not use the term "equity" except in its heading. The phrasing in the actual text is "insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". (And, if I understand correctly, headings do not carry the force of law.) It seems to me that "damage" must carry its usual meaning. That is given by 12B1: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." Perhaps one can ask similar questions about the reference point for determining the NOS's expectation here, but this wording appears to stand on its own without reference to the WBFLC minute. Had declarer not committed the infraction (the second revoke), what is NOS's expectation? It appears to be the score for 10 tricks. Regards, Sebastian. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110625/7e6eaf21/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sat Jun 25 09:38:07 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 09:38:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Mixed boards from Iceland In-Reply-To: <1885594537.7172331308950850023.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> References: <1885594537.7172331308950850023.JavaMail.root@z-mbox-01.simnet.is> Message-ID: Am 24.06.2011, 23:27 Uhr, schrieb Vigf?s P?lsson : > > All the players are advanced. Not experts. > > Teams. VUL: None Dealer West > Contr. 4 hearts. 6 tricks > >>>>>>>>>> North >>>>>>>>>> A97 >>>>>>>>>> 9543 >>>>>>>>>> J >>>>>>>>>> 109863 > West>>>>>>>>>>>>>>East > A5432>>>>>>>>>>>>>10 > KQJ53>>>>>>>>>>>>>84 > 8>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>QJ105 > 94>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AKQ752 >>>>>>>>>> South >>>>>>>>>> KQJ87 >>>>>>>>>> A9 >>>>>>>>>> K7642 >>>>>>>>>> 8 > > West>>>>North>>>East>>>>South > 2C(1)>>>Pass>>>>2NT>>>>>3S > Db(2)>>>Pass>>>>4C(3)>>>Pass > 4H>>>>>>All Pass > > 1.Weak majors or weak diamond > 2.Suggests penalty > 3.East was not certains about the meaning of the double > > North leads diamond Jack. Dummy calls TD and does not put his cards on > the table. > North is still holding the cards from the last board, and of course he > does not realise that. > I found the correct cards and gave them to north. > > They were? > S 96 > H 10762 > D A93 > C J1063 > > I asked the players to show me the bidding sequence. > I took North away from the table and asked him if he would have bid > differently > with the new cards. He said no. > I ruled that North should make a new opening lead. The only unouthorised > information at the table was the existence of the diamond J in Easts > hand. > Law 17D2 and 17D3 not fit here. > But I remembered that in San Remo we were told that TD should try to > have the boards played if possible. > Also in the foreword of the 2007 laws, there is written? > ?They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but > rather for the rectification > of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged? > In this case, the non-offending side was not damaged by the irregularity. > I feel I made a fair and right ruling but I can not find a place for my > ruling in the laws. Applying 17D: 1. North's first PASS is cancelled (17D1). 2. South has called over this PASS. 3. Therefore, an ArtAS has to be awarded as per 17D2. To clearly cover your situation, we have included a binding guidance in our Regulations that after the opening lead an ArtAS is always to be awarded. (Thia also covers the situation when, after 1NT - all pass, dummy is found to have the wrong cards.) Regards, Petrus From manne.blml at googlemail.com Sat Jun 25 10:08:45 2011 From: manne.blml at googlemail.com (manne blml) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:08:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be> <23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <6414674.1125561308929958203.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: > > ( robert Frick ) ( grattan ..... ) > Proof: Declarer is on track to make 9 or 10 tricks, depending on whether > or not he finds the queen of spades. He revokes in a suit, in a way that > does not affect the play. He will revoke again in that suit. What is > equity? If you take the WBFLC minute seriously, it must be determined by > the position now. > > It seems ridiculous to me to even try to answer the question. Anyway, > either answer leads to serious problems: > > If the answer is 8. Declarer finds the queen of spades, makes a revoke > that makes no difference in play, but loses a trick on the revoke to > "equity". > > If the answer is 9. Declarer doesn't find the queen of spades, makes a > revoke that gains a trick, and gets to keep the gained trick. > manne: > jumping a red light you get your penalty. driving back immediatly, jumping > once more > the next phase red light - yor penalty wont exist anymore . > i cannot believe this is wanted... > > regards manne > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110625/f536162f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 27 00:58:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:58:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: +=+ I suppose the nature of the problem is cultural. I am unable to speak as to the Dutch inheritance but only as to the approach to legislation in the United Kingdom. In my experience of negotiation with United Kingdom legislative authorities (i.e. Parliamentary draftsmen) the law has to be written so as to be read in the terms in which it is expressed and not by reference to any alleged past intent of the legislative body. ...................omissis............................... (It is very easy to fall into a trap where there are differences of meaning between my native language and American English.) ...................omissis............................... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is very easy to fall into a trap where there are differences of meaning between my native approach to legislation and Grattan's English English culture. When I was very young, the father of a friend was Dean of Law at the University of Tasmania. The Dean remarked that despite me being a mere teenager, I knew more about Australian constitutional Law than he did. Under the English unwritten constitution (or, more precisely, written constitution scattered between a huge number of diverse documents) the guiding principle is that Parliament is supreme. Under the Australian written constitution the guiding principle is that the High Court is supreme; it may and has annulled Laws passed by Parliament if the High Court deems those Laws to be unconstitutional.(1) Furthermore, the High Court is empowered to decide one way or another the meaning of ambiguous Laws. In such cases the High Court has "reference to [the] past intent of the legislative body". For example, nowhere in the Australian constitution is mentioned a right to free speech. But since the authors of the Australian constitution had the intent to create a functioning federal democracy, the High Court ruled an implied right to free speech and therefore annulled a Law limiting advertising during election campaigns. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) Perhaps the best analogy under the Laws of Duplicate Bridge occurred during the ancien regime of the 1997 Lawbook. It was a truth universally acknowledged that a 1997 Law 25B in possession of ambiguity must be in want of interpretation. But the first attempt of the WBF Laws Committee to interpret the 1997 Law 25B was in effect annulled as unconstitutional; National Bridge Organisations observed that the WBF LC interpretation of the 1997 Law 25B was directly contrary to its words. So at its second attempt the WBF LC modified its interpretation to be consistent with the words of the 1997 Law 25B (and also recommended the revision / abolition of the 1997 Law 25B to the 2007 Drafting Committee). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110626/7f1a7f1a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 27 02:30:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:30:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sebastian Yuen (Canberra) >One of the points that struck me upon reading the original >bulletin -- I apologise if this has been brought up >already -- was that 64C does not use the term "equity" >except in its heading. The phrasing in the actual text is >"insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage >caused". (And, if I understand correctly, headings do not >carry the force of law.) > >[snip] Richard Hills (Canberra) Not so. It was the Scope of the 1997 Lawbook which stated that "headings are not considered to be part of the Laws". The Introduction to the 2007 Lawbook promulgates the more nuanced statement, "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law". This, in my opinion, means that a heading may be used to interpret an ambiguity in a Law. So, in my opinion, a Director may use the Law 64C heading Director Responsible for Equity to interpret the undefined (and hence ambiguous) "insufficiently compensated" phrase as meaning "not yet achieved equity" rather than the alternative meaning of "not yet achieved a bonus mechanical penalty above and beyond equity". Best wishes Richard Hills (Belconnen) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110627/92713804/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jun 27 02:52:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:52:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott +=+ My consistent theme in this topic has been that we have to read a law or regulation as it is written and not as we would like it to have been written or according to what we thought it meant when we wrote it. There are situations in which Law 10C4 may contribute something to the principle. Law 10C4 Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50). Grattan Endicott Gampas is imbued with a strong sense of the injustice inflicted in this case by applying the law as the minute instructs, yet however disadvantageous in its effect, application of its rules constitutes for any game justice by definition. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills Perhaps relevant to Grattan's point is that Law 12B1 does NOT use this (perhaps Gampas-preferred) criterion: "...the expectation at the moment before the infraction..." but instead Law 12B1 actually uses this criterion: "...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." Best wishes Richard Hills (Belconnen) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110627/39b70d4a/attachment.html From yuen.sebastian at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 06:34:20 2011 From: yuen.sebastian at gmail.com (Sebastian) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:34:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27 June 2011 10:30, wrote: > > Richard Hills (Canberra) > The Introduction to the 2007 Lawbook promulgates the more > nuanced statement, "Where headings remain they do not > limit the application of any law". This, in my opinion, > means that a heading may be used to interpret an ambiguity > in a Law. > I agree with the above... > > So, in my opinion, a Director may use the Law 64C heading > Director Responsible for Equity to interpret the undefined > (and hence ambiguous) "insufficiently compensated" phrase > as meaning "not yet achieved equity" rather than the > alternative meaning of "not yet achieved a bonus mechanical > penalty above and beyond equity". ...but not with this. The point is that this is an indirect attempt to (mis)interpret the term "damage caused", rather than the term "insufficiently compensated". The full phrase is "insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused". That is, we are required to provide compensation not for "equity", but for "damage caused". In defining "compensate", the dictionary on my shelf uses the words "equivalent" and "counterbalancing". (I assert that) where compensation is being given in the same form as the loss suffered, "sufficient compensation" by default refers to the full amount of the loss, being "equivalent". The only way to get to 11 tricks in the present case is to determine that the "damage caused" was zero. If the Laws did not contain a definition of "damage", I agree that it would be open to the director to interpret "damage caused"; and, in light of the heading, he might well use the word "equity" to guide him in that interpretation. However, the Laws do contain a definition of "damage" in L12C; thus, there is no alternative to ruling that there was damage caused, and the NOS requires compensation in the amount of the damage suffered. Regards, Sebastian. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jun 27 11:03:48 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:03:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27559432.1318721309165428470.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> >----Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 27/06/2011 1:30 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >So, in my opinion, a Director may use the Law 64C heading >Director Responsible for Equity to interpret the undefined >(and hence ambiguous) "insufficiently compensated" phrase >as meaning "not yet achieved equity" rather than the >alternative meaning of "not yet achieved a bonus mechanical >penalty above and beyond equity". > +=+ Even so. However, if the interpretation of 'sufficiently compensated' is laid down for him, as it is in the (seemingly injudiciously worded) 2008 minute, the judgement is taken out of the Director's hands. +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Jun 27 15:47:28 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:47:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:52:55 -0400, wrote: > > Richard Hills > > Perhaps relevant to Grattan's point is that Law 12B1 does > NOT use this (perhaps Gampas-preferred) criterion: > > "...the expectation at the moment before the infraction..." > > but instead Law 12B1 actually uses this criterion: > > "...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." These are going to come to the same thing. Right? Everything that occurs before the infraction would have still occurred if the infraction had not occurred. Don't we all agree that equity for the first revoke is determined by the expectation at the moment before the revoke occurred? As opposed to, for example, the expectation at the start of the hand or the expectation a trick before the revoke? From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jun 27 16:05:46 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:05:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: <8CE00C6E177D3E7-B94-554@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> References: <4E030F9D.9030402@ulb.ac.be><23980002.1003481308832763550.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost><8CE005517210F2E-10FC-640A@webmail-m172.sysops.aol.com> <8CE00C6E177D3E7-B94-554@webmail-m164.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <83508D3D-ABC4-4D4D-9053-A17DDC04417C@starpower.net> On Jun 24, 2011, at 4:46 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Eric Landau] > Because the opposite of "could have been" -- that which would make > L23 > inapplicable -- is "could not have been", not "was not". I would > expect someone who has a distaste for "mind reading" to appreciate the > difference better than most. > > [Paul Lamford] I agree that if it is decided the player could not have > been aware that the infraction would benefit him, there is no L23 > adjustment. With a revoke, the player always "could have been aware". > With a bid out of turn, there will indeed be situations where it is > just rub of the green - although the laws do deal separateley with an > enforced pass that damages the non-offenders. An insufficient bid > which > happens to gain will sometimes fall foul of L23. As will a BIT in a KJ > guess or similar. That is for the TD to judge; but he should always > rule that a defender could have been aware a revoke might gain if it > does. At least the good TD should so rule, in my opinion. Whether one agrees or not, Paul's view is consistent with L23 as I read it. The key phrase in Paul's post is "in my opinion", which simply echoes what the law actually says: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director,..." I'd be willing to bet that Paul, in an exercise in creativity, could construct a scenario in which even he would not apply L23 after a defender gains from a revoke. But there are those who would argue that it should be applied every time, even if an expert five-person AC reviewing a ruling against a relative novice agrees that none among them could have forseen the obscure circumstances by which the revoke might gain. I would argue, separately, that one should never apply L23 in the case of a revoke, because L64C, which makes no mention of "could have been aware at the time", is the broader law, giving the TD/AC more scope to adjust the score than L23 does, making any application of L23 redundant. But that's a separate argument. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Mon Jun 27 22:16:37 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:16:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Poznan appeal 4 - L23 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CE031E4071FE30-1508-22F22@webmail-d069.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] So, in my opinion, a Director may use the Law 64C heading Director Responsible for Equity to interpret the undefined (and hence ambiguous) "insufficiently compensated" phrase as meaning "not yet achieved equity" rather than the alternative meaning of "not yet achieved a bonus mechanical penalty above and beyond equity". [Paul Lamford] In the case in question had the second revoke not occurred, declarer would have made 10 tricks, so he was "insufficiently compensated" by the award of 11 tricks. Your argument might be valid if following instead of revoking also made 11 tricks. It did not. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jun 28 01:22:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:22:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills >>Perhaps relevant to Grattan's point is that Law 12B1 does >>NOT use this (perhaps Gampas-preferred) criterion: >> >>"...the expectation at the moment before the infraction..." >> >>but instead Law 12B1 actually uses this criterion: >> >>"...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." Robert Frick >These are going to come to the same thing. Right? Everything >that occurs before the infraction would have still occurred >if the infraction had not occurred. > >Don't we all agree that equity for the first revoke is >determined by the expectation at the moment before the >revoke occurred? As opposed to, for example, the >expectation at the start of the hand or the expectation a >trick before the revoke? Richard Hills "Right?" Wrong. "Don't we all agree?" No, we do not all agree. Or, in other words, petitio principii. In my opinion, the current wording of Law 12B1 permits an infraction to be cancelled at later-point-of-time B, but equity to be determined at earlier-point-of-time A. If this was not the case, then the 2008 WBF Laws Committee minute would be an unconstitutional nullity. Thus, in my opinion, the 2008 WBF Laws Committee minute will remain constitutionally valid unless and until the 2018 Drafting Committee rewrites the 2018 Law 12 to redefine the 2018 meaning of "damage" as: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." Best wishes Richard Hills (Belconnen) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110627/c337b0bd/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Jun 28 19:44:47 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:44:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:22:22 -0400, wrote: > Richard Hills > >>> Perhaps relevant to Grattan's point is that Law 12B1 does >>> NOT use this (perhaps Gampas-preferred) criterion: >>> >>> "...the expectation at the moment before the infraction..." >>> >>> but instead Law 12B1 actually uses this criterion: >>> >>> "...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." > > Robert Frick > >> These are going to come to the same thing. Right? Everything >> that occurs before the infraction would have still occurred >> if the infraction had not occurred. >> >> Don't we all agree that equity for the first revoke is >> determined by the expectation at the moment before the >> revoke occurred? As opposed to, for example, the >> expectation at the start of the hand or the expectation a >> trick before the revoke? > > Richard Hills > > "Right?" Wrong. "Don't we all agree?" No, we do not all > agree. Or, in other words, petitio principii. > > In my opinion, the current wording of Law 12B1 permits an > infraction to be cancelled at later-point-of-time B, but > equity to be determined at earlier-point-of-time A. If this > was not the case, then the 2008 WBF Laws Committee minute > would be an unconstitutional nullity. The phrase "after the first revoke" is just a careless error. They happen all the time. I ignore them. You find a way to read the laws to get to the right answer. You can do that here, I am sure. It is impossible to take seriously. What seemed obvious to me was this. If I say "what you would expect to be different if John F. Kennedy wasn't assassinated?" and you offer the opinion that he wouldn't have been elected president 3 years earlier, I will think you are crazy. You are either violating the laws of causality, or the laws of language. Same for L12B1. It asks directors to determine what would have happened if the revoke had not occurred. We don't change the things that happened before the revoke. > > Thus, in my opinion, the 2008 WBF Laws Committee minute will > remain constitutionally valid unless and until the 2018 > Drafting Committee rewrites the 2018 Law 12 to redefine the > 2018 meaning of "damage" as: > > "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent > side obtains a table result less favourable than would have > been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." > > Best wishes > The Australian High Court would never come to the same conclusion. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jun 30 06:44:26 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:44:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Eric Landau [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: World Wide Words is copyright (c) Michael Quinion 2011. All rights reserved. The Words website is at http://www.worldwidewords.org . The landau, a very posh conveyance as you may gather, appears in just one Sherlock Holmes story: Away they went, and I was just wondering whether I should not do well to follow them when up the lane came a neat little landau, the coachman with his coat only half- buttoned, and his tie under his ear, while all the tags of his harness were sticking out of the buckles. It hadn't pulled up before she shot out of the hall door and into it. I only caught a glimpse of her at the moment, but she was a lovely woman, with a face that a man might die for. [A Scandal in Bohemia, 1891. The woman is, of course, Irene Adler.] The landau could be pulled by four horses (a four-in-hand, from the four sets of reins held by the driver), though two was more common. It was low-slung, with four seats facing each other in pairs, usually open but with folding tops front and rear that could be raised and closed together in bad weather. The landau was an excellent vehicle for being seen in, which is why it features in so many pictures of royalty or lord mayors in ceremonial processions even today. It's named after Landau in Germany, where it was invented in the eighteenth century. Eric Landau [snip] >I would argue, separately, that one should never apply L23 in >the case of a revoke, because L64C, which makes no mention of >"could have been aware at the time", is the broader law, >giving the TD/AC more scope to adjust the score than L23 >does, making any application of L23 redundant. But that's a >separate argument. Richard Hills In the debate between Intelligent Design and Evolution, the Law Book is an example of punctuated equilibrium evolution. Since in earlier editions of the Law Book the strictures of Law 23 applied only to the auction, the cardplay Law 64C evolved separately. The current overlap between these two Laws is an example of convergent evolution, because Law 23 evolved into a auction/cardplay omnivore due to the niche occupied by the Alcatraz Coup needing a predator. Or, to speak plainly, Evolution is a poor way to create a set of rules for a game, as internal inconsistencies are guaranteed. Much better would be rules Intelligently Designed (with such Intelligence including specific rules on what to do when "the" irregularity morphs into "linked multiple" irregularities). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110630/dc8ac176/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Jun 27 18:28:19 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:28:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Red Herring - constitutional Law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E08AFA3.5010403@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:52:55 -0400, wrote: > > > >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Perhaps relevant to Grattan's point is that Law 12B1 does >> NOT use this (perhaps Gampas-preferred) criterion: >> >> "...the expectation at the moment before the infraction..." >> >> but instead Law 12B1 actually uses this criterion: >> >> "...the expectation had the infraction not occurred..." > > These are going to come to the same thing. Right? Everything that occurs > before the infraction would have still occurred if the infraction had not > occurred. > > Don't we all agree that equity for the first revoke is determined by the > expectation at the moment before the revoke occurred? As opposed to, for > example, the expectation at the start of the hand or the expectation a > trick before the revoke? Yes, we all agree about that. What we don't agree is when the revoke actually occurs. Most of you take the mechanistic view that the revoke occurs when declarer detaches the heart from hand and puts it on the table. Maybe it is better to take the mentalistic view that the revoke occurs when declarer plays the queen of clubs, intending to discard the heart on it. And I am certain we shall not disagree that at that point the equity is 11 tricks. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium