From henk at ripe.net Tue Mar 1 01:01:01 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 1 02:32:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:32:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D6B6C83.5050700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : of course one can envisage it. What I'm against is to pretend >that, because it has been made, it is forcedly part of the system. Ali-Hills system notes (emailed on request), page 13: 1NT 2C 2H 2S non systemic 2NT natural invitation, 4 spades 3C 5+ clubs, 4 spades, invitational 3D 5+ diamonds, 4 spades, invitational 3H natural invitation 3S non systemic 3NT natural, 4 spades 4C non systemic 4D non systemic This auction was discussed on blml some years ago -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali 1NT Pass 2C Pass 2H Pass 2S (1) (1) Alerted and explained as non systemic In that discussion some years ago, every blmler except Herman De Wael accepted that "non systemic" was a valid explanation of the 2S call, so at least Herman is consistent in his fallacious argument that a call made by _one_ partner necessarily proves that there is a pre-existing mutual understanding by _both_ partners. Indeed, Hashmat Ali's call was a counter-example to the De Wael fallacy. The reason for Hashmat's 2S was that he wanted to call a systemic 2NT, but he pulled the wrong card out of his bidding box. :-) :-) Herman De Wael's dogmatic approach to evidence reminds me of this joke on page 28 of Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein: Two archaeologists, a Greek and an Egyptian, are arguing over who came from the more advanced ancient civilisation. The Greek says, "While digging in Corinth, we found copper wires buried under the village. This proves we already had telephones in the sixth century BCE!" And the Egyptian replies, "Well, in Giza, we dug under the ancient village and found no wires at all, thus proving they had already gone wireless!" Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 1 08:55:39 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:55:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> Message-ID: <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> So you believe it is easier to judge that a player has "used UI" than it > is that he >> has "not taken a suggested action that was a LA"? >> Strange. > > I believe you must have overlooked that Law 12 is a more general law than > Law 16? > No, I can see that - but I don't see how it is useful. > In order to apply law 12A1 the Director must establish that a violation of > law has occurred and judge that the non-offending side has not received full > indemnity for the damage caused by this violation. > And where should that indemnity come from - L16 perhaps? > In order to apply Law 16 the Director must further establish that the > violation has been that of selecting a call or a play based on extraneous > information received and that the extraneous information demonstrably > suggested the selected call or play over other logical alternatives. > Indeed - but what he does not need to do is judge that the player has "avoided taking advantage of ..." which is very difficult. Please remember that we both use L12. I do it to select the AS that is given after the infraction of L16. You do it to select the AS after the infraction of L73. You use 12A, I use 12C. > I have a big problem understanding how a suggestion from a player to his > partner that he ought to ask about opponents' auction can be taken to > demonstrably suggest one particular call over other logical alternative > calls. However, I have no problem seeing that in some cases illegally > "awakening" partner like that can "damage" opponents. > And I have great difficulty how you can rule that there has been any damage if the above is not true. When West tells East illegally that he ought to ask for the meaning of the auction, and East does so, and he learns something, and he makes a different call than the one he would have made had he not asked, is that not a "call selected"? And conversely, if East makes the same call he was going to make without asking, how are NS damaged? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 1 09:52:44 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:52:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 1. mars 2011 08:56 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] unauthorised info? > > Sven Pran wrote: > >> > >> So you believe it is easier to judge that a player has "used UI" than > >> it > > is that he > >> has "not taken a suggested action that was a LA"? > >> Strange. > > > > I believe you must have overlooked that Law 12 is a more general law > > than Law 16? > > > > No, I can see that - but I don't see how it is useful. > > > In order to apply law 12A1 the Director must establish that a > > violation of law has occurred and judge that the non-offending side > > has not received full indemnity for the damage caused by this violation. > > > > And where should that indemnity come from - L16 perhaps? Perhaps, but not neccessarily. > > > In order to apply Law 16 the Director must further establish that the > > violation has been that of selecting a call or a play based on > > extraneous information received and that the extraneous information > > demonstrably suggested the selected call or play over other logical alternatives. > > > > Indeed - but what he does not need to do is judge that the player has "avoided > taking advantage of ..." which is very difficult. > Please remember that we both use L12. I do it to select the AS that is given after > the infraction of L16. You do it to select the AS after the infraction of L73. You use > 12A, I use 12C. > > > I have a big problem understanding how a suggestion from a player to > > his partner that he ought to ask about opponents' auction can be taken > > to demonstrably suggest one particular call over other logical > > alternative calls. However, I have no problem seeing that in some > > cases illegally "awakening" partner like that can "damage" opponents. > > > > And I have great difficulty how you can rule that there has been any damage if the > above is not true. > When West tells East illegally that he ought to ask for the meaning of the auction, > and East does so, and he learns something, and he makes a different call than > the one he would have made had he not asked, is that not a "call selected"? > And conversely, if East makes the same call he was going to make without asking, > how are NS damaged? If you find that the illegal communication has led to a player using UI then by all means use Law 16. But Illegal communication is a violation in itself, and I am afraid that if you cannot imagine other ways such communication can damage opponents then your imagination appears somewhat limited? From henk at ripe.net Tue Mar 1 10:02:53 2011 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:02:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: <201103010902.p2192rqx021675@cat.ripe.net> BLML usage statistics for February 2011 Posts From ----- ---- 58 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 46 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 30 svenpran (at) online.no 24 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 23 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 20 blml (at) arcor.de 19 ehaa (at) starpower.net 14 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 14 adam (at) irvine.com 13 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 12 sater (at) xs4all.nl 10 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 9 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 9 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 8 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 8 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 6 henk (at) ripe.net 5 swillner (at) nhcc.net 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 5 bpark56 (at) comcast.net 4 lavaldubreuil (at) xplornet.com 4 l.kalbarczyk (at) gmail.com 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 3 diggadog (at) iinet.net.au 2 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 2 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 2 hirsch9000 (at) gmail.com 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 tom.cheng.tong (at) gmail.com 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 roger-eymard (at) orange.fr 1 nigelguthrie (at) yahoo.co.uk 1 madam (at) civilradio.hu 1 lali808 (at) gmail.com 1 info (at) honorsbridgeclub.org 1 gampas (at) aol.com 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm 1 bridge (at) vwalther.de 1 bmeadows666 (at) gmail.com 1 Cibor (at) poczta.fm From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 1 11:41:22 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:41:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> Message-ID: <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > If you find that the illegal communication has led to a player using UI then > by all means use Law 16. > > But Illegal communication is a violation in itself, and I am afraid that if > you cannot imagine other ways such communication can damage opponents then > your imagination appears somewhat limited? > OK Sven, my imagination is limited. Please use your imagination then and come up with a story in which East does not change the call he was going to make without hearing the illegally obtained information, and where NS are damaged. If East selects the same call, NS cannot be damaged. Please enlighten me. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3474 - Release Date: 02/28/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 1 13:25:36 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:25:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > If you find that the illegal communication has led to a player using > > UI then by all means use Law 16. > > > > But Illegal communication is a violation in itself, and I am afraid > > that if you cannot imagine other ways such communication can damage > > opponents then your imagination appears somewhat limited? > > > > OK Sven, my imagination is limited. > Please use your imagination then and come up with a story in which East does not > change the call he was going to make without hearing the illegally obtained > information, and where NS are damaged. > If East selects the same call, NS cannot be damaged. > Please enlighten me. Oh yes. For instance take a look at Law 74C4 From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 1 16:07:58 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:07:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> Message-ID: <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> Now Sven's imagination is running wild. Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> If you find that the illegal communication has led to a player using >>> UI then by all means use Law 16. >>> >>> But Illegal communication is a violation in itself, and I am afraid >>> that if you cannot imagine other ways such communication can damage >>> opponents then your imagination appears somewhat limited? >>> >> >> OK Sven, my imagination is limited. >> Please use your imagination then and come up with a story in which East > does not >> change the call he was going to make without hearing the illegally > obtained >> information, and where NS are damaged. >> If East selects the same call, NS cannot be damaged. >> Please enlighten me. > > Oh yes. For instance take a look at Law 74C4 > and how does this relate to the present case? If East, after hearing west being refused an answer, hits south in the face, then NS are damaged other than by a different call. But that is not handled by the bridge laws but by expulsion. Other than that, I honestly can't imagine how NS can be damaged when East selects the exact same call he would have done. And that, IMO, is exactly what is covered by the LA of L16. But Sven is imagining other kinds of things. I believe Sven is suffering from Hermanitis. Once he has contradicted Herman, there is no way whatsoever that he can ever contemplate changing his mind. And imagining starts. Sorry Sven, but you have been simply wrong, and I've tried patiently to have you see it. If I've failed, sorry. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3474 - Release Date: 02/28/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Mar 1 18:31:05 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:31:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> If, as the contributor of the original enquiry, I may interrupt the dialogue between Herman and Sven: I find their arguments, in principle, convincing, may even agree with Herman but I don't think it is necessary for him to say the Sven is wrong (without noting that it is in his opinion - and even then it seems superfluous. We have all noted that they disagree and presumably the reason is that each thinks the other is "wrong". Only Sven is, I assume, too well mannered to state it baldly. Anyway, in the original case, although the player had started to draw a bidding card from his bidding box before his partner asked out of turn, he replaced and then asked. So no one could know if his final bid was different. And it was not an obvious case of one player trying to call to the attention of his partner of something he thought the partner might not have noticed. (I have had that happen when playing a weak NT which, at the time and venue, didn't have to be alerted and the 4th hand, out of turn, having seen that her partner hadn't looked at our CC, asked, and even, in one case shoved her copy of our CC across the table with her finger held to our 1NT opening range.) But these are easier cases I think. My problem here, which was quite accurately deduced by Sven and Herman (and some others) was that there was apparently no way of knowing if the player had been influenced by his partner's question. He asks and gets a response. Now he makes a call. Are we supposed (looking at his cards I assume) to determine what his call would have been without the question and if the call he actually made differed from it. Seems pretty speculative to me. In a nutshell (as Grattan put it), there has been illegal info/communication. Has it had an effect and how do we determine that? But my thanks, especially to Herman and Sven, for showing me various methods of possibly solving the problem. JE Am 01.03.2011 16:07, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Now Sven's imagination is running wild. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> If you find that the illegal communication has led to a player using >>>> UI then by all means use Law 16. >>>> >>>> But Illegal communication is a violation in itself, and I am afraid >>>> that if you cannot imagine other ways such communication can damage >>>> opponents then your imagination appears somewhat limited? >>>> >>> OK Sven, my imagination is limited. >>> Please use your imagination then and come up with a story in which East >> does not >>> change the call he was going to make without hearing the illegally >> obtained >>> information, and where NS are damaged. >>> If East selects the same call, NS cannot be damaged. >>> Please enlighten me. >> Oh yes. For instance take a look at Law 74C4 >> > and how does this relate to the present case? > If East, after hearing west being refused an answer, hits south in the > face, then NS are damaged other than by a different call. > But that is not handled by the bridge laws but by expulsion. > > Other than that, I honestly can't imagine how NS can be damaged when > East selects the exact same call he would have done. And that, IMO, is > exactly what is covered by the LA of L16. > > But Sven is imagining other kinds of things. > > I believe Sven is suffering from Hermanitis. Once he has contradicted > Herman, there is no way whatsoever that he can ever contemplate changing > his mind. And imagining starts. > > Sorry Sven, but you have been simply wrong, and I've tried patiently to > have you see it. If I've failed, sorry. > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3474 - Release Date: 02/28/11 20:34:00 >> From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Mar 1 18:31:05 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:31:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> If, as the contributor of the original enquiry, I may interrupt the dialogue between Herman and Sven: I find their arguments, in principle, convincing, may even agree with Herman but I don't think it is necessary for him to say the Sven is wrong (without noting that it is in his opinion - and even then it seems superfluous. We have all noted that they disagree and presumably the reason is that each thinks the other is "wrong". Only Sven is, I assume, too well mannered to state it baldly. Anyway, in the original case, although the player had started to draw a bidding card from his bidding box before his partner asked out of turn, he replaced and then asked. So no one could know if his final bid was different. And it was not an obvious case of one player trying to call to the attention of his partner of something he thought the partner might not have noticed. (I have had that happen when playing a weak NT which, at the time and venue, didn't have to be alerted and the 4th hand, out of turn, having seen that her partner hadn't looked at our CC, asked, and even, in one case shoved her copy of our CC across the table with her finger held to our 1NT opening range.) But these are easier cases I think. My problem here, which was quite accurately deduced by Sven and Herman (and some others) was that there was apparently no way of knowing if the player had been influenced by his partner's question. He asks and gets a response. Now he makes a call. Are we supposed (looking at his cards I assume) to determine what his call would have been without the question and if the call he actually made differed from it. Seems pretty speculative to me. In a nutshell (as Grattan put it), there has been illegal info/communication. Has it had an effect and how do we determine that? But my thanks, especially to Herman and Sven, for showing me various methods of possibly solving the problem. JE Am 01.03.2011 16:07, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Now Sven's imagination is running wild. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> If you find that the illegal communication has led to a player using >>>> UI then by all means use Law 16. >>>> >>>> But Illegal communication is a violation in itself, and I am afraid >>>> that if you cannot imagine other ways such communication can damage >>>> opponents then your imagination appears somewhat limited? >>>> >>> OK Sven, my imagination is limited. >>> Please use your imagination then and come up with a story in which East >> does not >>> change the call he was going to make without hearing the illegally >> obtained >>> information, and where NS are damaged. >>> If East selects the same call, NS cannot be damaged. >>> Please enlighten me. >> Oh yes. For instance take a look at Law 74C4 >> > and how does this relate to the present case? > If East, after hearing west being refused an answer, hits south in the > face, then NS are damaged other than by a different call. > But that is not handled by the bridge laws but by expulsion. > > Other than that, I honestly can't imagine how NS can be damaged when > East selects the exact same call he would have done. And that, IMO, is > exactly what is covered by the LA of L16. > > But Sven is imagining other kinds of things. > > I believe Sven is suffering from Hermanitis. Once he has contradicted > Herman, there is no way whatsoever that he can ever contemplate changing > his mind. And imagining starts. > > Sorry Sven, but you have been simply wrong, and I've tried patiently to > have you see it. If I've failed, sorry. > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3474 - Release Date: 02/28/11 20:34:00 >> From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 1 22:18:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:18:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] In a nutshell [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Brandon Thomas (1856-1914), English dramatist: "I'm Charley's aunt from Brazil - where the nuts come from." Jeff Easterson: [big snip] >In a nutshell (as Grattan put it), there has been illegal >info/communication. Has it had an effect and how do we >determine that? Richard Hills: Many years ago I was a member of the non-offending side when this non-screen auction occurred. WEST NORTH EAST 1NT Pass 2D (1) (1) Transfer to hearts, alerted by East (not West) East explained to the Director that she was only trying to be helpful. West never forgot a transfer (a credible statement, since Jacoby transfers have been part of the furniture in the Canberra Bridge Club for decades), but West sometimes forgot the technical requirement to alert transfers. So to ensure that North-South did not miss out on their right to be alerted, East thought that she was being super-ethical in correcting West's failure to alert. The Directors agreed that East's irregularity had had no effect on West's subsequent auction, and chose the mildest procedural penalty of educating East. So in answer to Jeff's question "how do we determine that?" the simple answer is as for any question of disputed fact: the balance of probabilities under Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 2 09:26:49 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:26:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > If, as the contributor of the original enquiry, I may interrupt the > dialogue between Herman and Sven: I find their arguments, in principle, > convincing, may even agree with Herman but I don't think it is necessary > for him to say the Sven is wrong (without noting that it is in his > opinion - and even then it seems superfluous. We have all noted that > they disagree and presumably the reason is that each thinks the other is > "wrong". Only Sven is, I assume, too well mannered to state it baldly. Well, in his last post, Sven really went off at a tangent. He was wrong, and there was nothing else to be said. I don't see it as being inpolite that one finishes a thread with a simple, you are wrong. All my other posts said the same thing, if not so succinctly. > Anyway, in the original case, although the player had started to draw a > bidding card from his bidding box before his partner asked out of turn, > he replaced and then asked. So no one could know if his final bid was > different. And it was not an obvious case of one player trying to call > to the attention of his partner of something he thought the partner > might not have noticed. (I have had that happen when playing a weak NT > which, at the time and venue, didn't have to be alerted and the 4th > hand, out of turn, having seen that her partner hadn't looked at our CC, > asked, and even, in one case shoved her copy of our CC across the table > with her finger held to our 1NT opening range.) > But these are easier cases I think. Indeed, but only in the sense that it is clear there that the remark influenced the bidder. In this case however, the influence is clear as well. We have been told that East had already started making a call, and then he puts it back and asks the question. Can it be more clear that the information influences his call? > My problem here, which was quite accurately deduced by Sven and Herman > (and some others) was that there was apparently no way of knowing if the > player had been influenced by his partner's question. He asks and gets > a response. Now he makes a call. Are we supposed (looking at his cards > I assume) to determine what his call would have been without the > question and if the call he actually made differed from it. Seems > pretty speculative to me. Well, we can always ask him what he thought the call meant. If he was right in his assumption, we can rule that his call was not changed. Otherwise, it is a simple case of determining LAs: give his hand to any player and tell them the previous bid was not alerted. > In a nutshell (as Grattan put it), there has been illegal > info/communication. Has it had an effect and how do we determine that? Well, isn't that always what we need to be doing? But my problem with Sven was that Sven imagined there could be "damage" (which he wants to treat under L12) without there also having to be "alternative bidding" (for which I want to use L16). > But my thanks, especially to Herman and Sven, for showing me various > methods of possibly solving the problem. JE -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Mar 2 09:55:17 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:55:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> I my be obtuse but there is a statement in your email I don't understand. I have noted my problem at that point. Am 02.03.2011 09:26, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> If, as the contributor of the original enquiry, I may interrupt the >> dialogue between Herman and Sven: I find their arguments, in principle, >> convincing, may even agree with Herman but I don't think it is necessary >> for him to say the Sven is wrong (without noting that it is in his >> opinion - and even then it seems superfluous. We have all noted that >> they disagree and presumably the reason is that each thinks the other is >> "wrong". Only Sven is, I assume, too well mannered to state it baldly. > Well, in his last post, Sven really went off at a tangent. He was wrong, > and there was nothing else to be said. I don't see it as being inpolite > that one finishes a thread with a simple, you are wrong. All my other > posts said the same thing, if not so succinctly. > >> Anyway, in the original case, although the player had started to draw a >> bidding card from his bidding box before his partner asked out of turn, >> he replaced and then asked. So no one could know if his final bid was >> different. And it was not an obvious case of one player trying to call >> to the attention of his partner of something he thought the partner >> might not have noticed. (I have had that happen when playing a weak NT >> which, at the time and venue, didn't have to be alerted and the 4th >> hand, out of turn, having seen that her partner hadn't looked at our CC, >> asked, and even, in one case shoved her copy of our CC across the table >> with her finger held to our 1NT opening range.) >> But these are easier cases I think. > Indeed, but only in the sense that it is clear there that the remark > influenced the bidder. In this case however, the influence is clear as > well. We have been told that East had already started making a call, and > then he puts it back and asks the question. Can it be more clear that > the information influences his call? > >> My problem here, which was quite accurately deduced by Sven and Herman >> (and some others) was that there was apparently no way of knowing if the >> player had been influenced by his partner's question. He asks and gets >> a response. Now he makes a call. Are we supposed (looking at his cards >> I assume) to determine what his call would have been without the >> question and if the call he actually made differed from it. Seems >> pretty speculative to me. > Well, we can always ask him what he thought the call meant. If he was > right in his assumption, we can rule that his call was not changed. > Otherwise, it is a simple case of determining LAs: give his hand to any > player and tell them the previous bid was not alerted. But the call had been alerted and he probably knew it; just didn't care to ask. This is different to him not noticing the alert. At the table it was clear that he had been aware of the alert but didn't choose to ask until his partner did (out of turn). >> In a nutshell (as Grattan put it), there has been illegal >> info/communication. Has it had an effect and how do we determine that? > Well, isn't that always what we need to be doing? But my problem with > Sven was that Sven imagined there could be "damage" (which he wants to > treat under L12) without there also having to be "alternative bidding" > (for which I want to use L16). > >> But my thanks, especially to Herman and Sven, for showing me various >> methods of possibly solving the problem. JE From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 2 09:58:35 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:58:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901cbd8b8$04b7af40$0e270dc0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > Well, isn't that always what we need to be doing? But my problem with Sven was > that Sven imagined there could be "damage" (which he wants to treat under L12) > without there also having to be "alternative bidding" > (for which I want to use L16). Is it so impossible that the damage could be associated with the subsequent play rather than an immediate change of a call? Or that an opponent can be deceived or distracted in some way by the illegal communication? When there is a violation of Law 73 and I find that in some way I consider NOS damaged from this violation I don't need to show that there is also another violation in using (possible) UI. Once I can judge the (probable) amount of damage I am free to apply Law 12 without bothering about. Note that I have never discarded the possibility of using Law 16; I have stated that it is not necessary to use Law 16 in order to make a ruling after a violation of Law 73. (And I understood Grattan to have the same principal view). From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 2 10:48:22 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:48:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Well, we can always ask him what he thought the call meant. If he was >> right in his assumption, we can rule that his call was not changed. >> Otherwise, it is a simple case of determining LAs: give his hand to any >> player and tell them the previous bid was not alerted. > But the call had been alerted and he probably knew it; just didn't care > to ask. This is different to him not noticing the alert. At the table > it was clear that he had been aware of the alert but didn't choose to > ask until his partner did (out of turn). OK, in that case, ask him what he thought the alerted bid meant. If he tells you it is the same as the explication you - either believe him and the ruling is finished - or don't believe him and assume some meanint, then go on below; If he tells you he thought it was something else, just give his hand and the explanation he thought it was to his peers and determine LAs. What is the problem? In all cases, in order to establish damage, you need to determine what the player would have done without partner's reminder. And Sven needs to do the same, in order to be able to give a L12 ruling. But Sven cannot easily do this, since he refuses to go by L16, so how is he going to determine his L12 adjustment. Of course Sven could simply take the same poll, but then what? A weighted score based on the answers he gets? Then he is giving a less harsh penalty than me - that'll be the day! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 2 10:56:12 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:56:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <000901cbd8b8$04b7af40$0e270dc0$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <000901cbd8b8$04b7af40$0e270dc0$@no> Message-ID: <4D6E143C.2050004@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> Well, isn't that always what we need to be doing? But my problem with Sven > was >> that Sven imagined there could be "damage" (which he wants to treat under > L12) >> without there also having to be "alternative bidding" >> (for which I want to use L16). > > Is it so impossible that the damage could be associated with the subsequent > play rather than an immediate change of a call? Or that an opponent can be > deceived or distracted in some way by the illegal communication? > No, of course it isn't. But when the damage results from a later call, or from a play, there is no difference between this ruling and the UI ruling based on partner asking at the proper time, "for partner's benefit". And that one is a simple UI ruling as well, but it is not the case we are talking about. I agree that this case, with its multiple steps (partner asking out of turn, then player repeating the same question) is an interesting one, since it does not look, at first glance, as an UI case. But I've tried to show that despite this appearance, it has to be treated like any other UI case, with a search for LAs, like what I just responded to the posts of Jeff's. > When there is a violation of Law 73 and I find that in some way I consider > NOS damaged from this violation I don't need to show that there is also > another violation in using (possible) UI. Once I can judge the (probable) > amount of damage I am free to apply Law 12 without bothering about. > And as I've shown you a few times already, what you will be doing is a L16 ruling. > Note that I have never discarded the possibility of using Law 16; I have > stated that it is not necessary to use Law 16 in order to make a ruling > after a violation of Law 73. (And I understood Grattan to have the same > principal view). > And as I've just told you, there is no way you can rule this under L12 without using L16 terminology and method. Perhaps I should repeat here the point I made in my last post in response to Jeff: When Sven wants to use L12, he will by force need to determine what would have happened "if not ...". That requires drawing up a list of alternatives, which are exactly the same as the LAs of L16. And then what does Sven do? Award a weighted score? I would be greatly surprised if he does that. So what else is left but an application of L16? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 2 11:17:14 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:17:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > But Sven cannot easily do this, since he refuses to go by L16 Please try to avoid incorrect quotes. I have never refused to use Law 16. My point is that damage from violations of Law 73 can exist without corresponding violations of Law 16. Frankly I find it very doubtful that even a remark like: "Should you not ask about the alerted call before making your own subsequent call?" can be said to "demonstrably suggest" one particular call over another. The remark itself is of course a clear violation of Law 73, but the call eventually chosen is not automatically a violation of Law 16. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 2 11:16:39 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:16:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6E143C.2050004@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <000901cbd8b8$04b7af40$0e270dc0$@no> <4D6E143C.2050004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6E1907.3050804@ulb.ac.be> Le 2/03/2011 10:56, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> ............ >>> Well, isn't that always what we need to be doing? But my problem with Sven >> was >>> that Sven imagined there could be "damage" (which he wants to treat under >> L12) >>> without there also having to be "alternative bidding" >>> (for which I want to use L16). >> Is it so impossible that the damage could be associated with the subsequent >> play rather than an immediate change of a call? Or that an opponent can be >> deceived or distracted in some way by the illegal communication? >> > No, of course it isn't. But when the damage results from a later call, > or from a play, there is no difference between this ruling and the UI > ruling based on partner asking at the proper time, "for partner's > benefit". And that one is a simple UI ruling as well, but it is not the > case we are talking about. > > I agree that this case, with its multiple steps (partner asking out of > turn, then player repeating the same question) is an interesting one, > since it does not look, at first glance, as an UI case. But I've tried > to show that despite this appearance, it has to be treated like any > other UI case, with a search for LAs, like what I just responded to the > posts of Jeff's. > AG : can't it be treated, more basically, as the equivalent of a "pro question" ? That's precisely what they're doing : asking for the benefit of partner. I had a very difficult time, last saturday at the Beker van Vlaanderen, explaining to RHO, after the deal, that even asking for a repetition of the explanation could be "helpful to partner" ; she wanted to check that partner (who had impaired heraing) did understand, and didn't like the answer "if he didn't hear, he may ask at own's turn ; for the moment, he doesn't need to know". And in fact, that isn't 100% true ; sometimes, you have to hear the explanation given to your partner, e.g. to know whether you have to alert one's bid. >> When there is a violation of Law 73 and I find that in some way I consider >> NOS damaged from this violation I don't need to show that there is also >> another violation in using (possible) UI. Once I can judge the (probable) >> amount of damage I am free to apply Law 12 without bothering about. >> > And as I've shown you a few times already, what you will be doing is a > L16 ruling. > AG : agree, but WTP ? Surely we're allowed to. Best regards Alain From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Mar 2 14:58:25 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:58:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info Message-ID: <4D6E4D01.70904@aol.com> In case anyone is interested, what actually happened at the table was: the player who did not ask for an explanation of the alert did not ask after her partner had tried to ask out of turn. She said she knew what the alerted bid meant. It later transpired that this was incorrect; she did not know what the bid meant or, at least had an incorrect conception of its meaning. But this was only apparent after she had called so it hadn't affected her call. It may have well affected her subsequent calls and play of the hand but then she would have had the correct info after her partner asked. This is only an explanation of what happened in the actual case; does not affect the basic problem(s). Ciao, JE From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 3 09:46:03 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:46:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> Message-ID: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ............ >> But Sven cannot easily do this, since he refuses to go by L16 > > Please try to avoid incorrect quotes. > > I have never refused to use Law 16. > > My point is that damage from violations of Law 73 can exist without > corresponding violations of Law 16. > > Frankly I find it very doubtful that even a remark like: "Should you not ask > about the alerted call before making your own subsequent call?" can be said > to "demonstrably suggest" one particular call over another. The remark > itself is of course a clear violation of Law 73, but the call eventually > chosen is not automatically a violation of Law 16. > No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of L16, how can it then be different from the call the player would have chosen without asking the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged? I am not saying that you should always use L16, but only that if there is damage, it must _necessarily_ be a damage which will be dealt with using a L16 scenario. There simply cannot be damage without there also being a L16 infraction! -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 3 10:08:21 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:08:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> Le 3/03/2011 9:46, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> ............ >>> But Sven cannot easily do this, since he refuses to go by L16 >> Please try to avoid incorrect quotes. >> >> I have never refused to use Law 16. >> >> My point is that damage from violations of Law 73 can exist without >> corresponding violations of Law 16. >> >> Frankly I find it very doubtful that even a remark like: "Should you not ask >> about the alerted call before making your own subsequent call?" can be said >> to "demonstrably suggest" one particular call over another. The remark >> itself is of course a clear violation of Law 73, but the call eventually >> chosen is not automatically a violation of Law 16. >> > No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. > But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of L16, how > can it then be different from the call the player would have chosen > without asking the question? AG :it looks like L16 deals with L73C cases, but not with L73B2 cases. From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 3 10:28:59 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:28:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601cbd985$6e8e5310$4baaf930$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ............. > > No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. > > But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of L16, > > how can it then be different from the call the player would have > > chosen without asking the question? > > AG :it looks like L16 deals with L73C cases, but not with L73B2 cases. Or L73D2 cases, or . . . . . . ? The point is that "damage" can happen in several ways. Realizing this is what I call "imagination" From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 3 11:14:06 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:14:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > AG :it looks like L16 deals with L73C cases, but not with L73B2 cases. > Well, at first glance, it does. And about the prearranged bit - that is for the Ethics people to deal with, the TD will just adjust the score on the board. But this has nothing to do with the case I was discussing with Sven - that is far from being a L73B2 case. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 3 11:17:15 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:17:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <000601cbd985$6e8e5310$4baaf930$@no> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <000601cbd985$6e8e5310$4baaf930$@no> Message-ID: <4D6F6AAB.8070609@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > ............. >>> No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. >>> But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of L16, >>> how can it then be different from the call the player would have >>> chosen without asking the question? >> >> AG :it looks like L16 deals with L73C cases, but not with L73B2 cases. > > Or L73D2 cases, or . . . . . . ? > > The point is that "damage" can happen in several ways. > > Realizing this is what I call "imagination" > And I have replied to this - my imagination is apprently limited, please use yours. Saying that something can happen in another way than what your correspondent tells you, does not make it so. Please give an example. How can damage arise which will not be dealt with using L16. Sorry Sven, to be laboring a point, but I have consistently told you that it cannot happen. And you have twice now told me that I need more imagination. I don't have enough imagination (yes I do, I have found one: East punches North in the nose), so you'll have to help me. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gampas at aol.com Thu Mar 3 14:35:20 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:35:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> And I have replied to this - my imagination is apprently limited, please use yours. Saying that something can happen in another way than what your correspondent tells you, does not make it so. Please give an example. How can damage arise which will not be dealt with using L16? We had such a case at our local club the night before last. It is only necessary to give the North-South hands: Dealer West: North-South vulnerable North xxxx Ax x AKQxxx South none Kxxx Axxx Jxxxx West North East South 3S Pass* Pass 7C! All Pass * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 North-South had recently agreed to play a 4C and 4D overcall of 3M as Roman non-jump and there was a long BIT over 3S. South, a keen roulette player, decided to gamble that his partner's BIT was based on a hand that wanted to make a natural 4C or 4D overcall, and he a 50-50 chance then of guessing which. Now, I think you will agree with me that 7C is not demonstrably suggested, and it is not even a logical alternative. Indeed logic and this South have very little in common. So, do you a) not adjust at all as it is just rub of the green b) not adjust but hit South with a PP c) adjust under 73C? From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 3 14:59:44 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:59:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <377619835.1624859.1299160784319.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com wrote: > > And I have replied to this - my imagination is apprently limited, > please > use yours. > Saying that something can happen in another way than what your > correspondent tells you, does not make it so. > Please give an example. > > How can damage arise which will not be dealt with using L16? > > > We had such a case at our local club the night before last. It is only > necessary to give the North-South hands: > > Dealer West: North-South vulnerable > > North > > xxxx > Ax > x > AKQxxx > > South > > none > Kxxx > Axxx > Jxxxx > > West North East South > 3S Pass* Pass 7C! > All Pass > > * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 > > North-South had recently agreed to play a 4C and 4D overcall of 3M as > Roman non-jump and there was a long BIT over 3S. South, a keen roulette > player, decided to gamble that his partner's BIT was based on a hand > that wanted to make a natural 4C or 4D overcall, and he a 50-50 chance > then of guessing which. Now, I think you will agree with me that 7C is > not demonstrably suggested, and it is not even a logical alternative. > Indeed logic and this South have very little in common. > > So, do you > a) not adjust at all as it is just rub of the green > b) not adjust but hit South with a PP > c) adjust under 73C? I disagree with this interpretation. This S player evaluated the UI, correctly figured out what the UI suggested, and then made a bid suggested by the UI. The fact that S then selected an outlandish 7C rather than some bid that allowed N to show his minor does not change that. In a more simple example, if N had said "I have long clubs, partner", that demonstrably suggests 4C, 5C, 6C, and 7C. The fact that S holds a hand that make a grand slam a bit unlikely does not change that. Even in case such a BIT does not suggest any particular hand, it still demonstrably suggests action over passing out 3S. I adjust to 3S undoubled, and I hit S with a PP. This is deliberate, flagrant use of UI. Thomas From gampas at aol.com Thu Mar 3 15:11:33 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:11:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <377619835.1624859.1299160784319.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> <377619835.1624859.1299160784319.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CDA7C4081DD4D3-1F30-4FDC@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> [Thomas Dehn] I disagree with this interpretation. This S player evaluated the UI, correctly figured out what the UI suggested, and then made a bid suggested by the UI. [Paul Lamford] That is true, but it was not *demonstrably* suggested. And there is an argument that he did not choose from *among logical alternatives*. If you think bidding is not automatic, then move one high card from North to South. I fully agree with adjusting, however. But only under 73C, as he has clearly not breached 16B. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Mar 3 15:15:41 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:15:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <0009 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr> gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > > And I have replied to this - my imagination is apprently limited, > please > use yours. > Saying that something can happen in another way than what your > correspondent tells you, does not make it so. > Please give an example. > > How can damage arise which will not be dealt with using L16? > > > We had such a case at our local club the night before last. It is only > necessary to give the North-South hands: > > Dealer West: North-South vulnerable > > North > > xxxx > Ax > x > AKQxxx > > South > > none > Kxxx > Axxx > Jxxxx > > West North East South > 3S Pass* Pass 7C! > All Pass > > * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 > > North-South had recently agreed to play a 4C and 4D overcall of 3M as > Roman non-jump and there was a long BIT over 3S. South, a keen roulette > player, decided to gamble that his partner's BIT was based on a hand > that wanted to make a natural 4C or 4D overcall, and he a 50-50 chance > then of guessing which. Now, I think you will agree with me that 7C is > not demonstrably suggested, i don't agree. absent the BIT, 7C had maybe 0.1% chance to be right. following the BIT its chance to be right grew to 10%. that is suggestion and my approximate evaluation of chances is intended to be demonstration. and it is not even a logical alternative. indeed, to call 7C logical is exaggeration but... > Indeed logic and this South have very little in common. ...one could say it's more logical than this south's mean logical level. > > So, do you > a) not adjust at all as it is just rub of the green > b) not adjust but hit South with a PP > c) adjust under 73C? d) intervene under the principles of 73C, see the need to appreciate damage under 16A4, assess damage under 16B1, wonder what to do under 16B3 and adjust under the modalities of 12C1. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From gampas at aol.com Thu Mar 3 15:36:22 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:36:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <0009 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> [jpr] i don't agree. absent the BIT, 7C had maybe 0.1% chance to be right. following the BIT its chance to be right grew to 10%. that is suggestion and my approximate evaluation of chances is intended to be demonstration. [Paul Lamford] Here we disagree with the meaning of *demonstrably* suggested. Say we bid 1S - 3S (limit, but slow). Let us say two thirds of those polled would now accept. Is passing or bidding 4S demonstrably suggested? No, all we can tell is partner is heavy or light or unusual for 3S or had alternative bids. The slowness will have increased or decreased the chances of success of 4S in some way which could be quantified by analysis. But this has not *demonstrably* suggested 4S over Pass. Some argue partner never underbids slowly, and if that is case, 4S would be demonstrably suggested. That is more of a CPU than UI. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 3 15:48:12 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:48:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. > But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of > L16, how > can it then be different from the call the player would have chosen > without asking the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as > the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged? Here's how: W knows what S's call means, but E is uncertain of that. By prompting W to ask (even if W doesn't do so, and E then asks at his turn), E reassures himself that W intended his call to be over the revealed meaning of S's call (which W already knew). This may affect *E's* subsequent bidding. E's infraction, in effect, didn't transmit UI, but rather "collected" it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Mar 3 16:15:27 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:15:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000 9 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd74 3$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036d a0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada4 3d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601 @skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cb d8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb .ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005. sysops.aol.com><4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr> <8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [jpr] > i don't agree. absent the BIT, 7C had maybe 0.1% chance to be right. > following the BIT its chance to be right grew to 10%. that is > suggestion and my approximate evaluation of chances is intended to be > demonstration. > > [Paul Lamford] Here we disagree with the meaning of *demonstrably* > suggested. Say we bid 1S - 3S (limit, but slow). Let us say two thirds > of those polled would now accept. Is passing or bidding 4S demonstrably > suggested? No, all we can tell is partner is heavy or light or unusual > for 3S or had alternative bids. The slowness will have increased or > decreased the chances of success of 4S in some way which could be > quantified by analysis. But this has not *demonstrably* suggested 4S > over Pass. Some argue partner never underbids slowly, and if that is > case, 4S would be demonstrably suggested. That is more of a CPU than UI. i agree with your understanding of demonstrably. i agree that in the conditions of your example, 4S is not demonstrably suggested. in the 7C case, maybe my demonstration is flawed, but if you admit that the chances of 7C to be right are substantially increased by the BIT, the bid is demonstrably suggested. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 3 16:32:08 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:32:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000 9 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd74 3$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036d a0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada4 3d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601 @skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cb d8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb .ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005. sysops.aol.com><4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr> <8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000001cbd9b8$28a5b770$79f12650$@no> I see no reason for any comment here other than that all these opinions on whether or not there is a violation of Law 16 just emphasize the importance of TD being able to rule directly under Law 73 (at his discretion) without involving also Law 16. The size of an assigned adjusted score must in any case be a matter of judgment by TD (and AC if his ruling is appealed). From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Mar 3 16:35:23 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:35:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <0009 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com><4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6FB53B.6000804@meteo.fr> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. >> But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of >> L16, how >> can it then be different from the call the player would have chosen >> without asking the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as >> the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged? > > Here's how: W knows what S's call means, but E is uncertain of > that. By prompting W to ask (even if W doesn't do so, and E then > asks at his turn), E reassures himself that W intended his call to be > over the revealed meaning of S's call (which W already knew). This > may affect *E's* subsequent bidding. E's infraction, in effect, > didn't transmit UI, but rather "collected" it. > ok, as herman i didn't see how it could happen. your example is tortuous but convincing. i could argue that the td is not compelled to believe that W knew but the situation could be that there are proofs that he actually knew. jpr > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 3 16:35:23 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:35:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7C4081DD4D3-1F30-4FDC@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CDA7C4081DD4D3-1F30-4FDC@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> <377619835.1624859.1299160784319.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <304593420.687929.1299166523033.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Thomas Dehn] > I disagree with this interpretation. This S player evaluated the UI, > correctly figured out what the UI suggested, and then made a bid > suggested by the UI. > > [Paul Lamford] That is true, but it was not *demonstrably* suggested. > And there is an argument that he did not choose from *among logical > alternatives*. If you think bidding is not automatic, then move one > high card from North to South. I think that if a player intentionally made a bid, rather than pulled the wrong bidding card or a similar error, it was a logical alternative for him. The fact that the majority of other players would not even have considered this bid does not change that. His peers are those who would at least consider that bid - more precisely to identify peers the TD would have to make some evaluation whether the player considered 7C mainly because of lack of ethics, or because of lack of skill, or because of being eccentric, or for some other reason. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 3 16:37:56 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:37:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D6FB5D4.10705@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:46 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. >> But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of >> L16, how >> can it then be different from the call the player would have chosen >> without asking the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as >> the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged? > > Here's how: W knows what S's call means, but E is uncertain of > that. By prompting W to ask (even if W doesn't do so, and E then > asks at his turn), E reassures himself that W intended his call to be > over the revealed meaning of S's call (which W already knew). This > may affect *E's* subsequent bidding. E's infraction, in effect, > didn't transmit UI, but rather "collected" it. > Very imaginative Eric, really! And how do you propose to rule on this infraction? Perhaps by using L16 on East's next bid? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 3 16:40:41 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:40:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4D6FB679.4070504@skynet.be> gampas at aol.com wrote: > > And I have replied to this - my imagination is apprently limited, > please > use yours. > Saying that something can happen in another way than what your > correspondent tells you, does not make it so. > Please give an example. > > How can damage arise which will not be dealt with using L16? > > > We had such a case at our local club the night before last. It is only > necessary to give the North-South hands: > > Dealer West: North-South vulnerable > > North > > xxxx > Ax > x > AKQxxx > > South > > none > Kxxx > Axxx > Jxxxx > > West North East South > 3S Pass* Pass 7C! > All Pass > > * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 > > North-South had recently agreed to play a 4C and 4D overcall of 3M as > Roman non-jump and there was a long BIT over 3S. South, a keen roulette > player, decided to gamble that his partner's BIT was based on a hand > that wanted to make a natural 4C or 4D overcall, and he a 50-50 chance > then of guessing which. Now, I think you will agree with me that 7C is > not demonstrably suggested, and it is not even a logical alternative. > Indeed logic and this South have very little in common. > > So, do you > a) not adjust at all as it is just rub of the green > b) not adjust but hit South with a PP > c) adjust under 73C? Perhaps I have a different perception of what L16 says, but I see no problem in using L16 here. The tortuous reasoning that South used to come up with his bid of 7C means that 7C is "suggested" to him. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gampas at aol.com Thu Mar 3 16:52:17 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:52:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000 9 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd74 3$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036d a0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada4 3d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601 @skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cb d8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb .ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005. sysops.aol.com><4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr><8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> [jpr] i agree with your understanding of demonstrably. i agree that in the conditions of your example, 4S is not demonstrably suggested. in the 7C case, maybe my demonstration is flawed, but if you admit that the chances of 7C to be right are substantially increased by the BIT, the bid is demonstrably suggested. [Paul Lamford] I would say that this is not the intended meaning of "demonstrably suggested". Let us say partner makes a slow pass of 4S. You now have a choice between, say, Pass and 5H. If Pass was obviously wrong without the UI, but might now work 10% of the time it is not demonstrably suggested. I think that the intention is something must have gone from being a clear underdog to a clear favourite as a result of the UI. From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 3 17:00:54 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:00:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6FB679.4070504@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FB679.4070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101cbd9bc$2d516860$87f43920$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > > > We had such a case at our local club the night before last. It is only > > necessary to give the North-South hands: > > > > Dealer West: North-South vulnerable > > > > North > > > > xxxx > > Ax > > x > > AKQxxx > > > > South > > > > none > > Kxxx > > Axxx > > Jxxxx > > > > West North East South > > 3S Pass* Pass 7C! > > All Pass > > > > * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 > > > > North-South had recently agreed to play a 4C and 4D overcall of 3M as > > Roman non-jump and there was a long BIT over 3S. South, a keen > > roulette player, decided to gamble that his partner's BIT was based on > > a hand that wanted to make a natural 4C or 4D overcall, and he a 50-50 > > chance then of guessing which. Now, I think you will agree with me > > that 7C is not demonstrably suggested, and it is not even a logical alternative. > > Indeed logic and this South have very little in common. > > > > So, do you > > a) not adjust at all as it is just rub of the green > > b) not adjust but hit South with a PP > > c) adjust under 73C? > > Perhaps I have a different perception of what L16 says, but I see no problem in > using L16 here. > The tortuous reasoning that South used to come up with his bid of 7C means that > 7C is "suggested" to him. Come on Herman! You cannot be serious when proposing an argument like that? . You know (as well as all of us) that the chosen alternative in an UI situation can very well have been chosen IN SPITE OF rather than BECAUSE it was suggested. From gampas at aol.com Thu Mar 3 17:04:55 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:04:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6FB679.4070504@skynet.be> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet.be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000901cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd743$cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036da0$570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada43d0$@no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601@skynet.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cbd8c3$00617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb.ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FB679.4070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8CDA7D3DD8CDE12-D68-27D7A@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] The tortuous reasoning that South used to come up with his bid of 7C means that 7C is "suggested" to him. [Paul Lamford] It is, but you would not have the test as to whether a bid was demonstrably suggested if it was always concluded that because a player selected a bid it must have been a logical alternative for him or must have been demonstrably suggested to him. We can save a few trees, and save some typing, by changing Law 16B to read: B. Extraneous Information from Partner 1. After a player makes available to his partner, in any way, extraneous information that may suggest a call or play the partner may not choose any logical alternative, and is therefore forced to pass at his next opportunity (otherwise the auction grinds to a halt). (see Law 23 if the pass damages the non-offending side). From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Mar 3 17:37:44 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:37:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> References: <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <00 0 9 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd 74 3$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d0 36d a0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1 ada4 3d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0 $@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1 000601 @skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><0 00a01cb d8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.2 0305@ulb .ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webm ail-d005. sysops.aol.com><4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr><8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-B E2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com><4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4D6FC3D8.4030603@meteo.fr> gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [jpr] > i agree with your understanding of demonstrably. i agree that in the > conditions of your example, 4S is not demonstrably suggested. in the 7C > case, maybe my demonstration is flawed, but if you admit that the > chances of 7C to be right are substantially increased by the BIT, the > bid is demonstrably suggested. > > [Paul Lamford] I would say that this is not the intended meaning of > "demonstrably suggested". Let us say partner makes a slow pass of 4S. > You now have a choice between, say, Pass and 5H. If Pass was obviously > wrong without the UI, but might now work 10% of the time it is not > demonstrably suggested. I think that the intention is something must > have gone from being a clear underdog to a clear favourite as a result > of the UI. it'a about the meaning of "suggested". is it "made desirable" or "made more desirable"? we have not the same reading of its intended meaning. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 19:00:10 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:00:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> References: <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> <4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr> <8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, wrote: > [jpr] > i agree with your understanding of demonstrably. i agree that in the > conditions of your example, 4S is not demonstrably suggested. in the 7C > case, maybe my demonstration is flawed, but if you admit that the > chances of 7C to be right are substantially increased by the BIT, the > bid is demonstrably suggested. > > [Paul Lamford] I would say that this is not the intended meaning of > "demonstrably suggested". Let us say partner makes a slow pass of 4S. > You now have a choice between, say, Pass and 5H. If Pass was obviously > wrong without the UI, but might now work 10% of the time it is not > demonstrably suggested. I think that the intention is something must > have gone from being a clear underdog to a clear favourite as a result > of the UI. > That's interesting and not at all how I read that phrase. I have always understood "demonstrably suggested" to mean that for the alternative under consideration the likelihood of that alternative's producing a good result has increased. So for me an alternative with a positive outcome of 5% in the absence of UI that goes to 6% in the presence of UI has been "demonstrably suggested". Collins > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110303/63073f22/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 3 21:25:16 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 21:25:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000 9 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd74 3$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036d a0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada4 3d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601 @skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cb d8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb .ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005. sysops.aol.com><4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr><8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <236322167.78514.1299183916415.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> gampas at aol.com > [jpr] > i agree with your understanding of demonstrably. i agree that in the > conditions of your example, 4S is not demonstrably suggested. in the 7C > case, maybe my demonstration is flawed, but if you admit that the > chances of 7C to be right are substantially increased by the BIT, the > bid is demonstrably suggested. > > [Paul Lamford] I would say that this is not the intended meaning of > "demonstrably suggested". Let us say partner makes a slow pass of 4S. > You now have a choice between, say, Pass and 5H. If Pass was obviously > wrong without the UI, but might now work 10% of the time it is not > demonstrably suggested. I think that the intention is something must > have gone from being a clear underdog to a clear favourite as a result > of the UI. TFLB is not clear on how much the chances for success have to be improved to satisfy the "demonstrably suggested" condition. That much said, the intent is not as you interpret it. The intent is that the player bends over backwards to avoid taking any advantage from the UI. Thomas From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 3 21:32:07 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 21:32:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: References: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <645361692.876096.1298465890717.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <215304437.78702.1299184327023.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 23, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A > >> partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where other > >> players would not make a penalty double" (and is not cheating) does > >> so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run winning > >> tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, > >> or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent > >> players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of > >> matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will > >> agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do with > >> doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to > >> disclose? > > > > No, it has a lot to do with doubling or not doubling with > > particular hands. > > And that has to be disclosed. All partnership understandings have > > to be disclosed. > > We have no agreement at all -- either explicit or implicit -- that > has anything to do with particular hand types. I still don't > understand what it is that Thomas would like us to disclose. > > > Whether doubling or not doubling with particular hands is good bridge > > is mostly irrelevant. You have to disclose both your partnership > > understandings that are good bridge and your partnership > > understandings that are bad bridge. > > Our "agreement", such as it is -- and it is explicit, we have > discussed it -- is that we both believe that it is winning strategy > at matchpoints to double for penalties considerably more often than > "the field". So we do. That's all there is. Is this really a > disclosable "partnership agreement" in the sense that TFLB uses the > term? Not only your explicit agreements have to be disclosed. Your partner has to disclosed to opponents everything he knows about your approach to bidding. Thomas From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Mar 3 21:50:17 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:50:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <215304437.78702.1299184327023.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <645361692.876096.1298465890717.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <215304437.78702.1299184327023.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D6FFF09.5040200@comcast.net> On 3/3/11 3:32 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: >> On Feb 23, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A >>>> partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where other >>>> players would not make a penalty double" (and is not cheating) does >>>> so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run winning >>>> tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, >>>> or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent >>>> players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of >>>> matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will >>>> agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do with >>>> doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to >>>> disclose? >>> No, it has a lot to do with doubling or not doubling with >>> particular hands. >>> And that has to be disclosed. All partnership understandings have >>> to be disclosed. >> We have no agreement at all -- either explicit or implicit -- that >> has anything to do with particular hand types. I still don't >> understand what it is that Thomas would like us to disclose. >> >>> Whether doubling or not doubling with particular hands is good bridge >>> is mostly irrelevant. You have to disclose both your partnership >>> understandings that are good bridge and your partnership >>> understandings that are bad bridge. >> Our "agreement", such as it is -- and it is explicit, we have >> discussed it -- is that we both believe that it is winning strategy >> at matchpoints to double for penalties considerably more often than >> "the field". So we do. That's all there is. Is this really a >> disclosable "partnership agreement" in the sense that TFLB uses the >> term? > Not only your explicit agreements have to be disclosed. > Your partner has to disclosed to opponents everything > he knows about your approach to bidding. > > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ So...How big is the book Jeff Meckstroth has on Eric Rodwell? I expect to be playing against them once or twice in Gatlinburg, and I'd like to make sure I set aside enough time for reading. --bp From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 3 22:47:31 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:47:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism In-Reply-To: <215304437.78702.1299184327023.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <1BB6F4DE-CC9E-409D-9D39-BE73479DDE9D@starpower.net> <4D5D0F7F.8010600@ulb.ac.be> <1264367667.562416.1297942938388.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <160137650.564857.1297945304229.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <1717114362.761731.1298018628153.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> <204989498.434741.1298373033214.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> <645361692.876096.1298465890717.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <215304437.78702.1299184327023.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <6D949134-63E6-4CFE-85FF-26DD1692E6E5@starpower.net> On Mar 3, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Feb 23, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: >> >>> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A >>>> partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where >>>> other >>>> players would not make a penalty double" (and is not cheating) does >>>> so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run >>>> winning >>>> tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, >>>> or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent >>>> players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of >>>> matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will >>>> agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do >>>> with >>>> doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to >>>> disclose? >>> >>> No, it has a lot to do with doubling or not doubling with >>> particular hands. >>> And that has to be disclosed. All partnership understandings have >>> to be disclosed. >> >> We have no agreement at all -- either explicit or implicit -- that >> has anything to do with particular hand types. I still don't >> understand what it is that Thomas would like us to disclose. >> >>> Whether doubling or not doubling with particular hands is good >>> bridge >>> is mostly irrelevant. You have to disclose both your partnership >>> understandings that are good bridge and your partnership >>> understandings that are bad bridge. >> >> Our "agreement", such as it is -- and it is explicit, we have >> discussed it -- is that we both believe that it is winning strategy >> at matchpoints to double for penalties considerably more often than >> "the field". So we do. That's all there is. Is this really a >> disclosable "partnership agreement" in the sense that TFLB uses the >> term? > > Not only your explicit agreements have to be disclosed. > Your partner has to disclosed to opponents everything > he knows about your approach to bidding. How would one do that? I'm the one who always suggests that BLMLers, "Explain it to them just like you explained it to us," but that doesn't quite work here. Am I really supposed to write on my CC, "We double for penalties whenever we think we should"? Or am I supposed to write, "We double for penalties more often than you probably do" -- and against timid opponents, expect to find, "We double for penalties less often than you probably do" on their CC? More consequently, if we were to make some such statement on our CC, we would then sensibly assume that our opponents, pre-warned, would pull in considerably and deprive us of the opportunity to make those lucrative penalty doubles (whether or not they would actually do so), hence make far fewer aggressive doubles. So however I may choose to describe our style, my description can be either true or disclosed, but not both. If we cannot chose to double aggressively without prior disclosure, we are effectively prevented from doubling aggressively at all, which can't be consistent with any intent of the laws. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Mar 3 23:04:25 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:04:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <236322167.78514.1299183916415.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.ar cor-online.net> References: <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000 9 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd74 3$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036d a0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada4 3d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601 @skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be> <000a01cb d8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no> <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <4D6F5A85.20305@ulb .ac.be> <4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be> <8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005. sysops.aol.com> <4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr> <8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com> <4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> <236322167.78514.1299183916415.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <201103032204.p23M4trS016767@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 07:25 AM 4/03/2011, you wrote: >gampas at aol.com > > [jpr] > > i agree with your understanding of demonstrably. i agree that in the > > conditions of your example, 4S is not demonstrably suggested. in the 7C > > case, maybe my demonstration is flawed, but if you admit that the > > chances of 7C to be right are substantially increased by the BIT, the > > bid is demonstrably suggested. > > > > [Paul Lamford] I would say that this is not the intended meaning of > > "demonstrably suggested". Let us say partner makes a slow pass of 4S. > > You now have a choice between, say, Pass and 5H. If Pass was obviously > > wrong without the UI, but might now work 10% of the time it is not > > demonstrably suggested. I think that the intention is something must > > have gone from being a clear underdog to a clear favourite as a result > > of the UI. > >TFLB is not clear on how much the chances for success >have to be improved to satisfy the "demonstrably suggested" condition. > >That much said, the intent is not as you interpret it. >The intent is that the player bends over backwards to avoid >taking any advantage from the UI. > > >Thomas I concur 100% with Thomas' analysis of this case. We have had it before several times. The player realises from partner's hesitation that 3S passed out will give a poor result. He realises that if he bids anything "logical" like dbl, 4 or 5 clubs (say) it will be rulled back if successful, so he chooses something illogical in the thought that at least he might as well give it a go. Most of the time of course, he guesses incorrectly, no damage and the case never goes to court. When successful it also gets ruled back with PP as the bid was demonstrably suggested to him. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 01:10:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:10:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6D949134-63E6-4CFE-85FF-26DD1692E6E5@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau, 4th March 2011: >>How would one do that? I'm the one who always suggests that >>BLMLers, "Explain it to them just like you explained it to >>us," but that doesn't quite work here. Am I really supposed >>to write on my CC, "We double for penalties whenever we >>think we should"? Or am I supposed to write, "We double for >>penalties more often than you probably do" -- and against >>timid opponents, expect to find, "We double for penalties >>less often than you probably do" on their CC? Ron Johnson, 28th July 2004: richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: > > > Rather, pre-alerting merely needs a good faith warning of > *key* and *probable* unusual agreements. The fact that I > unusually (for Australia) play a *rare* 4NT opening bid as > Acol Blackwood is something that I have never pre-alerted. Right, There's no particular point in pre-alerting something that: a) never rates to come up (I've never had a Blackwood opener -- though my partner did have a hand that would have been suitable. I'd already opened a strong NT in first seat though) b) Doesn't require defensive measures. By contrast I note that a few pairs in the recent US trials included important notes about style. Eric Landau, 4th March 2011: >>More consequently, if we were to make some such statement on >>our CC, we would then sensibly assume that our opponents, pre- >>warned, would pull in considerably and deprive us of the >>opportunity to make those lucrative penalty doubles (whether >>or not they would actually do so), hence make far fewer >>aggressive doubles. So however I may choose to describe our >>style, my description can be either true or disclosed, but not >>both. If we cannot chose to double aggressively without prior >>disclosure, we are effectively prevented from doubling >>aggressively at all, which can't be consistent with any intent >>of the laws. Ron Johnson, 28th July 2004: When I played in New York with my father we used to pre-alert the fact that we played 4 card majors and ACOL 2s (even though pre- alerts didn't exist when we first started to do this). We started to do this after a good player doubled on the auction. What sounded to her like a desperate struggle to game was in fact a slam try auction, and she wasn't over the big hand as she thought. Nothing in the auction was alertable, but it left me with a bad taste. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Fri Mar 4 06:15:34 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 06:15:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism Message-ID: <1355899811.1336226.1299215734125.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Robert Park wrote: > On 3/3/11 3:32 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Feb 23, 2011, at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >> > >>> Eric Landau wrote: > >>> > >>>> There are "demon doublers" and pusillanimous risk-avoiders. A > >>>> partnership that "make[s] penalty doubles with many hands where other > >>>> players would not make a penalty double" (and is not cheating) does > >>>> so because they believe that aggressive bidding is a long-run winning > >>>> tactic, or because they believe that they can out-defend the field, > >>>> or both. Numerous experts have opined in writing that indifferent > >>>> players routinely pass up opportunities to collect large numbers of > >>>> matchpoints by defending doubled contracts; some partnerships will > >>>> agree with them and some won't. None of this has anything to do with > >>>> doubling or not doubling on particular hand types. So what's to > >>>> disclose? > >>> No, it has a lot to do with doubling or not doubling with > >>> particular hands. > >>> And that has to be disclosed. All partnership understandings have > >>> to be disclosed. > >> We have no agreement at all -- either explicit or implicit -- that > >> has anything to do with particular hand types. I still don't > >> understand what it is that Thomas would like us to disclose. > >> > >>> Whether doubling or not doubling with particular hands is good bridge > >>> is mostly irrelevant. You have to disclose both your partnership > >>> understandings that are good bridge and your partnership > >>> understandings that are bad bridge. > >> Our "agreement", such as it is -- and it is explicit, we have > >> discussed it -- is that we both believe that it is winning strategy > >> at matchpoints to double for penalties considerably more often than > >> "the field". So we do. That's all there is. Is this really a > >> disclosable "partnership agreement" in the sense that TFLB uses the > >> term? > > Not only your explicit agreements have to be disclosed. > > Your partner has to disclosed to opponents everything > > he knows about your approach to bidding. > > > > > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > > So...How big is the book Jeff Meckstroth has on Eric Rodwell? I expect > to be playing against them once or twice in Gatlinburg, and I'd like to > make sure I set aside enough time for reading. TFLB does not contain such a requirement. The RA might have specified such requirements. The tournament conditions might have specified such requirements. The CC might has a section "unusual methods about which opponents should be warned." Then, also, ethical players should pre-alert their most important unusual methods before the first hand of the round. Basically, I agree with what Richard just wrote, but I'll write it again in my own words. Opponents should be pre-alerted about the following: o methods that need a special defense o unusual methods that nevertheless do not need an alert or announcement o unusual methods that need an alert, but where the alert itself does not indicate an unusual methods o and the above with a focus on unusual methods that are reasonably likely to come up during the round and where opponents might be damaged if they don't know in advance, or might need to discuss it before the round. For example, I usually pre-alerted the following: "I see you are playing a strong club system. We are playing a canap? defense against a strong club. 1D, 1H, 1S, and 2C are canap?, 1NT is a constructive minor one suiter. The one level canap? overcalls can be on three small, and can be raised with either four card support or a three suiter in the remaining suits. We might overcall 1S and raise to 2S on a 3-0 'fit' when advancer can guarantee at least four card support for overcaller's yet unknown five card suit." The strong club is likely to come up, a canap? defense is unusual, and they might have to adapt their normal bidding methods to the fact that their best fit might easily be in the suit "overcalled" and possibly even "raised". Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 06:54:43 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:54:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: Paul Lamford, 4th March 2011: [snip] >>> Dealer West: North-South vulnerable >>> >>> North >>> >>> xxxx >>> Ax >>> x >>> AKQxxx >>> >>> South >>> >>> none >>> Kxxx >>> Axxx >>> Jxxxx >>> >>> West North East South >>> 3S Pass* Pass 7C! >>> Pass Pass Pass >>> >>> * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 [snip] Herman De Wael, 3rd March 2011: [big snip] >>There simply cannot be [use-of-UI] damage without >>there also being a L16 infraction! Grattan Endicott, 27th February 2011: >************************************************* >" 'Logic': The art of thinking and reasoning >in strict accordance with the limitations and >incapacities of the human misunderstanding." > ['The Devil's Dictionary'] >************************************************* > >+=+ My first thought is to consider Laws 73B1 > in particular, and also 73C. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >+=+ Let me add that I like especially the words >"must carefully avoid taking any advantage". > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills, 2nd December 1805: Let's do the time warp again! Note that Herman De Wael responded to Paul Lamford's 4th March posting a day before it occurred, on 3rd March. And Grattan Endicott responded to Herman De Wael's 3rd March posting in the previous month, on 27th February. And now I am responding to each and everyone on 2nd December. Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C the bid of the grand slam is not logical, as 7C is not "thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding". Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be considered by the unimaginative "class of players in question". Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. However, as Grattan observes, the "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" wording of Law 73C means that that Law is more powerful than Law 16B. So it does not matter that the hypothetical use-of-UI leap to 7C is not an infraction of Law 16B; because the hypothetical 7C bidder did NOT "carefully avoid taking any advantage" of their hypothetical partner's break in tempo, the use-of-UI grand slam remains an infraction of Law 73C. George Orwell, Animal Farm: "All use-of-UI Laws are equal, but one use-of-UI Law is more equal than others." Best wishes Napoleon -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 4 07:22:17 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:22:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Nattering nabobs of negativism [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1355899811.1336226.1299215734125.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn: >..... >Then, also, ethical players should pre-alert their most >important unusual methods before the first hand of the round. > >Basically, I agree with what Richard just wrote, but I'll >write it again in my own words. >..... W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Mikado: This stem decree, you'll understand, Caused great dismay throughout the land! For young and old And shy and bold Were equally affected. The youth who winked a roving eye, Or breathed a non-connubial sigh, Was thereupon condemned to die-- He usually objected. And you'll allow, as I expect, That he was right to so object. And I am right, And you are right, And everything is quite correct! Richard Hills: Thomas Dehn is right, and Ron Johnson is right, and everything is quite correct! But not quite complete. I will write in my own words about the issue of _variable_ pre-Alerts. =+= When I pre-Alert the Ali-Hills system against easily bored bunnies, I provide these four nuggets of information: (a) we play strong club, weak notrump, five-card majors and an amorphous 1D opening bid, (b) we play funny RCO(1) two bids, (c) we play funny leads and signals, which vary according to whether you are declaring a suit contract or a notrump contract, and (d) we play lots of penalty doubles and not many negative doubles. When I pre-Alert the Ali-Hills system against easily bored Canberra semi-experts, who have played against us zillions of times before, I provide just this one nugget of information: (d) we play lots of penalty doubles and not many negative doubles, because Canberra semi-experts frequently use unusual leads and signals themselves, hence are well aware of the possibility. Indeed, some Canberra semi-experts wince when I give a (d) pre- Alert, well-remembering the -500 penalty they suffered at our hands last time. While for other Canberra semi-experts my uniform (d) spiel is a bit of a joke, as they expectantly wait for me to again repeat the exact words that I gave last time. Thus for the semi-expert Tuesday night at the Canberra Bridge Club I believe that I have now reached the stage where I do not have to give _any_ pre-Alerts, since all of my very regular semi-expert opponents know the important key points of the Ali-Hills system as well as I do. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills (1) Due to Australia's ridiculously libertarian systems policy, the bunny opponents often employ RCO or other Brown Sticker two bids themselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Mar 4 07:25:05 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:25:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201103040625.p246P6Qb018903@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:54 PM 4/03/2011, you wrote: >Paul Lamford, 4th March 2011: > >[snip] > > >>> Dealer West: North-South vulnerable > >>> > >>> North > >>> > >>> xxxx > >>> Ax > >>> x > >>> AKQxxx > >>> > >>> South > >>> > >>> none > >>> Kxxx > >>> Axxx > >>> Jxxxx > >>> > >>> West North East South > >>> 3S Pass* Pass 7C! > >>> Pass Pass Pass > >>> > >>> * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 > >[snip] > >Herman De Wael, 3rd March 2011: > >[big snip] > > >>There simply cannot be [use-of-UI] damage without > >>there also being a L16 infraction! > >Grattan Endicott, 27th February 2011: > > >************************************************* > >" 'Logic': The art of thinking and reasoning > >in strict accordance with the limitations and > >incapacities of the human misunderstanding." > > ['The Devil's Dictionary'] > >************************************************* > > > >+=+ My first thought is to consider Laws 73B1 > > in particular, and also 73C. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >+=+ Let me add that I like especially the words > >"must carefully avoid taking any advantage". > > ~ G ~ +=+ > >Richard Hills, 2nd December 1805: > >Let's do the time warp again! Note that Herman De >Wael responded to Paul Lamford's 4th March posting a >day before it occurred, on 3rd March. And Grattan >Endicott responded to Herman De Wael's 3rd March >posting in the previous month, on 27th February. > >And now I am responding to each and everyone on 2nd >December. > >Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C >the bid of the grand slam is not logical, as 7C is >not "thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with >the limitations and incapacities of the human >misunderstanding". > >Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be >considered by the unimaginative "class of players in >question". > >Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. However, as >Grattan observes, the "must carefully avoid taking >any advantage" wording of Law 73C means that that Law >is more powerful than Law 16B. > >So it does not matter that the hypothetical use-of-UI >leap to 7C is not an infraction of Law 16B; because >the hypothetical 7C bidder did NOT "carefully avoid >taking any advantage" of their hypothetical partner's >break in tempo, the use-of-UI grand slam remains an >infraction of Law 73C. > >George Orwell, Animal Farm: > >"All use-of-UI Laws are equal, but one use-of-UI Law >is more equal than others." > >Best wishes > >Napoleon > exactement! Ney Tony (Sydney) >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged >and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 4 09:00:42 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:00:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C > the bid of the grand slam is not logical, as 7C is > not "thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with > the limitations and incapacities of the human > misunderstanding". > > Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be > considered by the unimaginative "class of players in > question". > > Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. Yet, in the past, we have treated it often as such. We have often ruled on cases where the player chose a call that was not regarded as a LA, that such was also not allowed undeer L16. There is no need to now change that idea. > However, as > Grattan observes, the "must carefully avoid taking > any advantage" wording of Law 73C means that that Law > is more powerful than Law 16B. > And yet, L73 doe not have any definition of what "taking advantage" means. Some might say that a jump to seven, such as here, can never be "taking advantage", since it is a non-logical call - which, being non-logical, can never work. OTOH, if it can work, that means that it must be logical. Also, L73 does not have a penalty clause. I feel that L73 should be taken out of the lawbook, and that everything can be solved with L16. > So it does not matter that the hypothetical use-of-UI > leap to 7C is not an infraction of Law 16B; because > the hypothetical 7C bidder did NOT "carefully avoid > taking any advantage" of their hypothetical partner's > break in tempo, the use-of-UI grand slam remains an > infraction of Law 73C. > > George Orwell, Animal Farm: > > "All use-of-UI Laws are equal, but one use-of-UI Law > is more equal than others." > > Best wishes > > Napoleon > Well, we all knew Richard had folie-de-grandeur, but only our particular Richard (that we love so well) would have folie-de-grandeur in favour of a fictional pig. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 4 09:08:15 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:08:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] George Orwell - OT In-Reply-To: References: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000601cbda43$50833070$f1899150$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > George Orwell, Animal Farm: > > "All use-of-UI Laws are equal, but one use-of-UI Law is more equal than others." I have always thought it a pity that Orwell didn't write in Norwegian because here he would have had access to a very nice pun: The Norwegian word for equal is "lik" (the same word as "like" in English) Normally we say "lik", "mer lik" and "mest lik" (for equal, more equal and most equal), but a childish way is "lik", "likere" and "likest". The point is that the word "likere" in Norwegian means "better", "more appreciated" or "preferred". Guess which word is used in later Norwegian translations of "Animal farm"? From blml at arcor.de Fri Mar 4 09:32:31 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:32:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <846890250.1342295.1299227551784.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Paul Lamford, 4th March 2011: > > [snip] > > >>> Dealer West: North-South vulnerable > >>> > >>> North > >>> > >>> xxxx > >>> Ax > >>> x > >>> AKQxxx > >>> > >>> South > >>> > >>> none > >>> Kxxx > >>> Axxx > >>> Jxxxx > >>> > >>> West North East South > >>> 3S Pass* Pass 7C! > >>> Pass Pass Pass > >>> > >>> * long BIT; table result North-South +2140 > > [snip] > > Herman De Wael, 3rd March 2011: > > [big snip] > > >>There simply cannot be [use-of-UI] damage without > >>there also being a L16 infraction! > > Grattan Endicott, 27th February 2011: > > >************************************************* > >" 'Logic': The art of thinking and reasoning > >in strict accordance with the limitations and > >incapacities of the human misunderstanding." > > ['The Devil's Dictionary'] > >************************************************* > > > >+=+ My first thought is to consider Laws 73B1 > > in particular, and also 73C. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >+=+ Let me add that I like especially the words > >"must carefully avoid taking any advantage". > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills, 2nd December 1805: > > Let's do the time warp again! Note that Herman De > Wael responded to Paul Lamford's 4th March posting a > day before it occurred, on 3rd March. And Grattan > Endicott responded to Herman De Wael's 3rd March > posting in the previous month, on 27th February. > > And now I am responding to each and everyone on 2nd > December. > > Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C > the bid of the grand slam is not logical, as 7C is > not "thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with > the limitations and incapacities of the human > misunderstanding". > > Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be > considered by the unimaginative "class of players in > question". > > Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. However, as > Grattan observes, the "must carefully avoid taking > any advantage" wording of Law 73C means that that Law > is more powerful than Law 16B. > > So it does not matter that the hypothetical use-of-UI > leap to 7C is not an infraction of Law 16B; because > the hypothetical 7C bidder did NOT "carefully avoid > taking any advantage" of their hypothetical partner's > break in tempo, the use-of-UI grand slam remains an > infraction of Law 73C. There is a big difference between "not a logical alternative absent the UI" and "not a logical alternative even with the UI". I am interpreting TFLB such that a call that is a logical alternative with the UI is an LA. And if a call is not a logical alternative absent the UI but is a logical alternative with the UI, then it is "demonstrably" suggested by the UI. Thomas From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 4 09:33:46 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 09:33:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C the bid of the > > grand slam is not logical, as 7C is not "thinking and reasoning in > > strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human > > misunderstanding". > > > > Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be considered by the > > unimaginative "class of players in question". > > > > Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. > > Yet, in the past, we have treated it often as such. > > We have often ruled on cases where the player chose a call that was not > regarded as a LA, that such was also not allowed under L16. > > There is no need to now change that idea. IMHO this is abuse of Law 16. Under that idea a TD never needs to try if a chosen call or play could have been demonstrably suggested by UI, you describe a routine where the only question left in Law 16 is if a different possible call or play exists that would have been more favourable to NOS. > > However, as > > Grattan observes, the "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" > > wording of Law 73C means that that Law is more powerful than Law 16B. > > > > And yet, L73 doe not have any definition of what "taking advantage" > means. Some might say that a jump to seven, such as here, can never be > "taking advantage", since it is a non-logical call - which, being > non-logical, can never work. OTOH, if it can work, that means that it > must be logical. Law 73 gives TD full authority to judge on this question, unlimited by the constraints in Law 16. > > Also, L73 does not have a penalty clause. Which means that we go directly to Law 12A1 > > I feel that L73 should be taken out of the lawbook, and that everything > can be solved with L16. Law 73 has its obvious function as taking care of situations arising from improper communication between partners when such situations aren't catered for in Law 16 (or any other law). It is obviously true that Law 16 will apply in most such situations, but so long as exceptions may exist Law 73 has its obvious place in the lawbook. From Cibor at poczta.fm Fri Mar 4 09:36:06 2011 From: Cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:36:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] George Orwell - OT In-Reply-To: <1299226142.16477.nfs130.twold:3813:-1:-1> References: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> <1299226142.16477.nfs130.twold:3813:-1:-1> Message-ID: "Sven Pran" pisze: > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > ............. > > George Orwell, Animal Farm: > > > > "All use-of-UI Laws are equal, but one use-of-UI Law is more equal than > others." > > I have always thought it a pity that Orwell didn't write in Norwegian > because here he would have had access to a very nice pun: > > The Norwegian word for equal is "lik" (the same word as "like" in English) > > Normally we say "lik", "mer lik" and "mest lik" (for equal, more equal and > most equal), but a childish way is "lik", "likere" and "likest". > > The point is that the word "likere" in Norwegian means "better", "more > appreciated" or "preferred". > > Guess which word is used in later Norwegian translations of "Animal farm"? I love your post. A very nice story. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland --------------------------------------------------------------- Wybierz Queen of Poland! Ocen i zaglosuj na wybrana dziewczyne >>> http://linkint.pl/f2930 From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 4 10:03:58 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:03:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> Message-ID: <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be> No Sven, you totally misunderstood Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> >>> Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C the bid of the >>> grand slam is not logical, as 7C is not "thinking and reasoning in >>> strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human >>> misunderstanding". >>> >>> Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be considered by the >>> unimaginative "class of players in question". >>> >>> Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. >> >> Yet, in the past, we have treated it often as such. >> >> We have often ruled on cases where the player chose a call that was not >> regarded as a LA, that such was also not allowed under L16. >> >> There is no need to now change that idea. > > IMHO this is abuse of Law 16. > Under that idea a TD never needs to try if a chosen call or play could have > been demonstrably suggested by UI, NO, what I was argueing about was whether 7C was a LA, which is what some people think matters. I don't believe it does, or rather, I believe that if a player chooses 7C, then 7C is a LA to him. > you describe a routine where the only > question left in Law 16 is if a different possible call or play exists that > would have been more favourable to NOS. > NO, I still try and find if the call was suggested by the UI. In the case of 7C, I believe it is, since the player believes (from the UI, I might add) that passing will not yield a sufficiently good score. He believes 7C will score better than 3S, and therefore 7C is suggested to him. And it's suggested by the UI, because that is how he "knows" 3S will not be a good spot. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 4 10:30:55 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:30:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > No Sven, you totally misunderstood > > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >>> > >>> Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C the bid of the > >>> grand slam is not logical, as 7C is not "thinking and reasoning in > >>> strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human > >>> misunderstanding". > >>> > >>> Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be considered by > >>> the unimaginative "class of players in question". > >>> > >>> Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. > >> > >> Yet, in the past, we have treated it often as such. > >> > >> We have often ruled on cases where the player chose a call that was > >> not regarded as a LA, that such was also not allowed under L16. > >> > >> There is no need to now change that idea. > > > > IMHO this is abuse of Law 16. > > Under that idea a TD never needs to try if a chosen call or play could > > have been demonstrably suggested by UI, > > NO, what I was argueing about was whether 7C was a LA, which is what some > people think matters. I don't believe it does, or rather, I believe that if a player > chooses 7C, then 7C is a LA to him. > > > you describe a routine where the only > > question left in Law 16 is if a different possible call or play exists > > that would have been more favourable to NOS. > > > > NO, I still try and find if the call was suggested by the UI. In the case of 7C, I > believe it is, since the player believes (from the UI, I might add) that passing will > not yield a sufficiently good score. He believes 7C will score better than 3S, and > therefore 7C is suggested to him. And it's suggested by the UI, because that is > how he "knows" 3S will not be a good spot. I would have agreed with you if you had discussed a more "reasonable" bid, say 5C. But ruling that a "wild or gambling" call shall be deemed suggested by UI only because it was chosen by the player in possession of that UI is taking it too far. If that is the intention of Law 16B then the restriction "that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" has no place in Law 16. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 4 13:27:46 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:27:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be> <000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> Message-ID: <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > I would have agreed with you if you had discussed a more "reasonable" bid, > say 5C. > But ruling that a "wild or gambling" call shall be deemed suggested by UI > only because it was chosen by the player in possession of that UI is taking > it too far. > Look at it this way: The player knows that 3S is a bad spot (from UI). He knows that bidding 4C does not help him (because it will be returned to 3S). He knows that bidding 5C does not help him (because it will be returned to 3S). He may believe that 6C would be allowed, but he's tried that in the past and he's heard a TD rule against him - as you would, probably. So he now knows that bidding 6C won't help him. So he's left with only one possible call that will allow him to play in a different contract to 3S. So basically, to him, 7C is the only alternative to passing. And he knows all this through the UI. So the bid of 7C is suggested to him by the UI. Also look at it in one other way, Sven: you agree with me that he's not allowed to keep his score for 7C=, do you? So why this terrible urge of yours to not want to reach that via L16? > If that is the intention of Law 16B then the restriction "that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" > has no place in Law 16. > Well, I've just shown (demonsttrated) that there is a suggestion. I maintain that whenever a player makes a choice, and he has his own rational explanation for that choice, then to him it is a LA, and it was suggested to him by all the information in his possession. Which does not in itself mean that it was suggested by the UI. That is still up to the TD to determine. If the player tells you the reasons for his call, and these do not include the UI, the TD still needs to see whether he believes the player. But this player, with his 7C, can only give as a reason that he "knew" partner must have had a solid minor, since he could not bid 4C or 5C. And he only knew that partner had something from the hesitation. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Fri Mar 4 13:49:03 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:49:03 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> References: <000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <337581598.1689617.1299242943989.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > No Sven, you totally misunderstood > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > >> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Yes, in Paul Lamford's hypothetical flashy leap to 7C the bid of the > > >>> grand slam is not logical, as 7C is not "thinking and reasoning in > > >>> strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human > > >>> misunderstanding". > > >>> > > >>> Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be considered by > > >>> the unimaginative "class of players in question". > > >>> > > >>> Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. > > >> > > >> Yet, in the past, we have treated it often as such. > > >> > > >> We have often ruled on cases where the player chose a call that was > > >> not regarded as a LA, that such was also not allowed under L16. > > >> > > >> There is no need to now change that idea. > > > > > > IMHO this is abuse of Law 16. > > > Under that idea a TD never needs to try if a chosen call or play could > > > have been demonstrably suggested by UI, > > > > NO, what I was argueing about was whether 7C was a LA, which is what some > > people think matters. I don't believe it does, or rather, I believe that > if a player > > chooses 7C, then 7C is a LA to him. > > > > > you describe a routine where the only > > > question left in Law 16 is if a different possible call or play exists > > > that would have been more favourable to NOS. > > > > > > > NO, I still try and find if the call was suggested by the UI. In the case > of 7C, I > > believe it is, since the player believes (from the UI, I might add) that > passing will > > not yield a sufficiently good score. He believes 7C will score better > than > 3S, and > > therefore 7C is suggested to him. And it's suggested by the UI, because > that is > > how he "knows" 3S will not be a good spot. > > I would have agreed with you if you had discussed a more "reasonable" bid, > say 5C. > But ruling that a "wild or gambling" call shall be deemed suggested by UI > only because it was chosen by the player in possession of that UI is taking > it too far. > > If that is the intention of Law 16B then the restriction "that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information" > has no place in Law 16. Sven, the point is that without the UI, bidding 7C is maybe a 1% action, whereas pass is a 70% action. With the UI, pass now is a 1% action, and bidding 7C has become a 20% action. Thomas From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 5 12:08:53 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:08:53 -0000 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> Grattan Endicott Frankly I find it very doubtful that even a remark like: "Should you not ask about the alerted call before making your own subsequent call?" can be said to "demonstrably suggest" one particular call over another. The remark itself is of course a clear violation of Law 73, but the call eventually chosen is not automatically a violation of Law 16. > [Herman] No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a violation of L16, how can it then be different from the call the player would have chosen without asking the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged? I am not saying that you should always use L16, but only that if there is damage, it must _necessarily_ be a damage which will be dealt with using a L16 scenario. There simply cannot be damage without there also being a L16 infraction! ..................................................... +=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto to be a peer of Z as a player. To some extent I think Sven and Herman are debating how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Herman is unwise to say 'necessarily' because if a situation were to arise in which L16 was not applicable Sven is right in saying that Law 73 would embrace it. Such a situation is difficult to envisage, and I have not seen that Sven provided an illustration, but Sven is correct in principle. Law 73 does allow the Director to apply a penalty if he judges that the player has made a deliberate attempt to convey something to his partner, whether that partner hears the message or not, and whether he acts upon it or not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gampas at aol.com Sat Mar 5 13:51:53 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 07:51:53 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8CDA94B3CC2C8A1-9C4-E5C9@webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] Also, L73 does not have a penalty clause. I feel that L73 should be taken out of the lawbook, and that everything can be solved with L16. [Paul Lamford] Law 12A1 is enough: 1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. So the fact that L73 does not have a penalty clause is not an impediment. But by all means specify the penalty for its breach, if you so desire. I feel that L16 should be taken out the lawbook, and that everything can be solved with L73. It is a bit like having a sign "No parking at any time" and also another sign "No vehicles over 10 metres". From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 18:06:50 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:06:50 -0600 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CDA94B3CC2C8A1-9C4-E5C9@webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <8CDA94B3CC2C8A1-9C4-E5C9@webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: [Herman de Wael] Also, L73 does not have a penalty clause. I feel that L73 should be taken out of the lawbook, and that everything can be solved with L16. [Paul Lamford] Law 12A1 is enough: 1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. So the fact that L73 does not have a penalty clause is not an impediment. But by all means specify the penalty for its breach, if you so desire. I feel that L16 should be taken out the lawbook, and that everything can be solved with L73. It is a bit like having a sign "No parking at any time" and also another sign "No vehicles over 10 metres". [Jerry Fusselman] I agree with Herman on which piece is better to toss away. The flaw with L73 is the phrase "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." It seems a call for the director to read minds, because it directly states the proper frame of mind---apparently for the director to check it out. It leads people to give arguments starting "I was always going to...," and it causes many directors and BLML posters to sometimes buy these sorts of arguments. Instead, I wish directors would give up on mind reading whenever possible and just used well-established procedure, such as Law 16's. And I wish players would be taught that their responsibility is covered by the Law 16 procedure (with LAs and demonstrably suggested), where self-serving statements about your frame of mind have no bearing on the rectification. The part about "the gravest possible offense" also calls for mind reading, and unfortunately, we must in this case. I suppose most disciplinary actions require some mind reading. But it asks too much of human capabilities to read minds when the alternative is so much fairer: A clear, objective procedure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110305/be3608d2/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Sun Mar 6 10:14:41 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:14:41 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <236322167.78514.1299183916415.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> References: <8CDA7D21B2E1D8C-D68-2784F@webmail-m082.sysops.aol.com> <4D6B5979.10800@skynet. be> <000301cbd725$acaef4e0$060cdea0$@no> <4D6B81F8.3000905@skynet.be> <000 9 01cbd739$09447460$1bcd5d20$@no> <4D6B8E31.4040007@skynet.be> <001201cbd74 3$ cfb4e2b0$6f1ea810$@no> <4D6B9F64.7060705@skynet.be> <000101cbd75f$1d036d a0$ 570a48e0$@no> <4D6CA67B.2030700@skynet.be> <000301cbd7ee$08f36bf0$1ada4 3d0$ @no> <4D6CCD52.4060600@skynet.be> <001601cbd80b$c4a61650$4df242f0$@no> <4D6 D0BCE.4050907@skynet.be> <4D6D2D59.3010400@aol.com> <4D6DFF49.1000601 @skyne t.be> <4D6E05F5.2080201@aol.com> <4D6E1266.20005@skynet.be><000a01cb d8c3$00 617380$01245a80$@no><4D6F554B.1080506@skynet.be><4D6F5A85.20305@ulb .ac.be><4D6F69EE.4070904@skynet.be><8CDA7BEF507AC74-1F30-4959@webmail-d005. sysops.aol.com><4D6FA28D.2000003@meteo.fr><8CDA7C78067E05C-1750-BE2D@webmail-d022.sysops.aol.com><4D6FB08F.6010906@meteo.fr> <236322167.78514.1299183916415.JavaMail.ngmail@we bmail16.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CDA9F60F9D4990-1DBC-19200@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> [Thomas Dehn] That much said, the intent is not as you interpret it. The intent is that the player bends over backwards to avoid taking any advantage from the UI. [Paul Lamford] You are reinforcing my point. Law 16B does not require him to bend over backwards, but Law 73 does. In fact Law 73 effectively modifies "some" peers to "any" peers in 16B. Law 73 effectively bars him from selecting any call that is "vaguely", rather than" demonstrably" suggested, and from selecting any call takes even the slightest advantage of the UI. From gampas at aol.com Sun Mar 6 10:25:18 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:25:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> [Herman De Wael] But this player, with his 7C, can only give as a reason that he "knew" partner must have had a solid minor, since he could not bid 4C or 5C. And he only knew that partner had something from the hesitation. [Paul Lamford] There were many possible reasons for the break in tempo over 3S in the example I gave. His partner might well have had a hand that could not bid 4C, but 5C would certainly have been natural. The chance of 7C being successful was therefore about the same as the next Pope being called Elvis, but on this occasion partner had the right cards. One might argue that 4NT would be a demonstrably suggested bid - clearly pick a minor - and you could argue that 5NT was as well. But, no, 7C is not demonstrably suggested to anyone. If the TFLB meant "demonstrably suggested to the warped mind of the person in question" it would have said so. Linked with "logical alternative" it implies a rational peer making a rationally argued choice which uses the UI. Now, there will indeed be bids that breach Law 16B, but this is not one of them. Law 73C is an essential backstop because we do not like the idea that someone can gamble when they have UI. I share this antipathy, and Law 73 does a good job of dealing with the problem. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 6 10:39:06 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:39:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> References: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> Message-ID: <4D73563A.4060609@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott Skype: grattan.endicott > ************************************************* > " 'Logic': The art of thinking and reasoning > in strict accordance with the limitations and > incapacities of the human misunderstanding." > ['The Devil's Dictionary'] > ************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 03 March 2011 08:46 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] unauthorised info? > > Sven Pran wrote: > ............ > But Sven cannot easily do this, since he refuses to > go by L16 > > Please try to avoid incorrect quotes. > > I have never refused to use Law 16. My point is that > damage from violations of Law 73 can exist without > corresponding violations of Law 16. >> > Frankly I find it very doubtful that even a remark like: > "Should you not ask about the alerted call before making > your own subsequent call?" can be said > to "demonstrably suggest" one particular call over > another. The remark itself is of course a clear violation > of Law 73, but the call eventually chosen is not > automatically a violation of Law 16. >> > [Herman] > > No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. > But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a > violation of L16, how can it then be different from > the call the player would have chosen without asking > the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as > the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged? > > I am not saying that you should always use L16, but only > that if there is damage, it must _necessarily_ be a damage > which will be dealt with using a L16 scenario. > > There simply cannot be damage without there also being a > L16 infraction! > ..................................................... > > +=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested > that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider > a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. > A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing > the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did > consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto > to be a peer of Z as a player. > To some extent I think Sven and Herman are debating how > many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Herman is > unwise to say 'necessarily' because if a situation were to > arise in which L16 was not applicable Sven is right in saying > that Law 73 would embrace it. Such a situation is difficult > to envisage, and I have not seen that Sven provided an illustration, but > Sven is correct in principle. > Law 73 does allow the Director to apply a penalty if he > judges that the player has made a deliberate attempt to convey > something to his partner, whether that partner hears the > message or not, and whether he acts upon it or not. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And I would agree that that part of L73 needs to remain, as a basis for ethics hearings. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 6 10:48:32 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 10:48:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000401cbdbe3$a8c764d0$fa562e70$@no> On Behalf Of gampas at aol.com > Sent: 6. mars 2011 10:25 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [Herman De Wael] > But this player, with his 7C, can only give as a reason that he "knew" > partner must have had a solid minor, since he could not bid 4C or 5C. > And he only knew that partner had something from the hesitation. > > [Paul Lamford] There were many possible reasons for the break in tempo over 3S > in the example I gave. His partner might well have had a hand that could not bid > 4C, but 5C would certainly have been natural. The chance of 7C being successful > was therefore about the same as the next Pope being called Elvis, but on this > occasion partner had the right cards. One might argue that 4NT would be a > demonstrably suggested bid - clearly pick a minor - and you could argue that 5NT > was as well. But, no, 7C is not demonstrably suggested to anyone. If the TFLB > meant "demonstrably suggested to the warped mind of the person in question" > it would have said so. Linked with "logical alternative" it implies a rational peer > making a rationally argued choice which uses the UI. Now, there will indeed be > bids that breach Law 16B, but this is not one of them. Law 73C is an essential > backstop because we do not like the idea that someone can gamble when they > have UI. I share this antipathy, and Law 73 does a good job of dealing with the > problem. Opinion shared by me. Law 73 (leading to Law 12A1) is a general law that can be used when there could be (technical) difficulties with Law 16B (leading to Law 12C). From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 6 22:04:12 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:04:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> References: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> Message-ID: On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 06:08:53 -0500, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott Skype: grattan.endicott > ************************************************* > " 'Logic': The art of thinking and reasoning > in strict accordance with the limitations and > incapacities of the human misunderstanding." > ['The Devil's Dictionary'] > ************************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 03 March 2011 08:46 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] unauthorised info? > > Sven Pran wrote: > ............ > But Sven cannot easily do this, since he refuses to > go by L16 > > Please try to avoid incorrect quotes. > > I have never refused to use Law 16. My point is that > damage from violations of Law 73 can exist without > corresponding violations of Law 16. >> > Frankly I find it very doubtful that even a remark like: > "Should you not ask about the alerted call before making > your own subsequent call?" can be said > to "demonstrably suggest" one particular call over > another. The remark itself is of course a clear violation > of Law 73, but the call eventually chosen is not > automatically a violation of Law 16. >> > [Herman] > > No, of course it isn't, that's why we use L16. > But then tell me Sven, if the call chosen is not a > violation of L16, how can it then be different from > the call the player would have chosen without asking > the question? Or if the call chosen is the same one as > the one he would have chosen, how can NS then be damaged? > > I am not saying that you should always use L16, but only > that if there is damage, it must _necessarily_ be a damage > which will be dealt with using a L16 scenario. > > There simply cannot be damage without there also being a > L16 infraction! > ..................................................... > > +=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested > that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider > a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. > A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing > the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did > consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto > to be a peer of Z as a player. > To some extent I think Sven and Herman are debating how > many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Herman is > unwise to say 'necessarily' because if a situation were to > arise in which L16 was not applicable Sven is right in saying > that Law 73 would embrace it. Such a situation is difficult > to envisage, and I have not seen that Sven provided an illustration, but > Sven is correct in principle. A challenge! Suggested places where you want L73 instead of L16: One player to partner: "I think you should accept that insufficient bid". Violates L73, but L16 does not disallow the use of this information (because L16 addresses only the use of UI for calls and plays). For the same reason: Defender says, "Your spades are good", whereupon other defender claims. I announce transfer. My partner does not expect me to say this. Is this AI? According to L16, yes, because it is part of the legal procedures of the game. L73A rules out all communication between partners except for calls and plays. (This is a little awkward for things like "no spades partner?" or "You are in dummy." So we use L16 for those. But L73 works really well for announcements.) I pick up my hand and say I have 9 spades. My partner has not yet taken his hand from the board. This is AI according to L16, because it is information I have before I take my hand from the board. Does L73B rule this out? Ignoring the definition of "extraneous" in L16, it does. Maybe a better example is the opponent opens 2D Flannery and my partner reminds me of our defense to Flannery before I have taken my hand from the board. This is clearly ruled out by L73A because the auction has started. So L16 is not a stand-alone law. It would be nice to have all of the AI/UI laws in one place. Other AI/UI laws probably include L40A2 and L75. Also, the definition of "extraneous" in the definitions is useful when you don't want the L16 definition. If you ignore the contradictions, the current mish-mash of laws rules out almost all improper uses of information. A purist might not like all of the contradictions, but in practice they allow us to use whichever law works best. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 7 01:41:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:41:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be >>considered by the unimaginative "class of players in >>question". >> >>Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. Herman De Wael: >Yet, in the past, we have treated it often as such. > >We have often ruled on cases where the player chose a >call that was not regarded as a LA, that such was also >not allowed under L16. > >There is no need to now change that idea. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th October 2010, item 3: "There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 7 09:42:03 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:42:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001cbdca3$88de6f90$9a9b4eb0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Richard Hills: > > >>Nor is 7C a logical alternative, as 7C would not be considered by the > >>unimaginative "class of players in question". > >> > >>Hence 7C is not a Law 16B infraction. > > Herman De Wael: > > >Yet, in the past, we have treated it often as such. > > > >We have often ruled on cases where the player chose a call that was not > >regarded as a LA, that such was also not allowed under L16. > > > >There is no need to now change that idea. > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th October 2010, item 3: > > "There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed > that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the > logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may > arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the > particular circumstances." And in order to be a Law 16B infraction it must be not only a logical alternative, but a DEMONSTRABLY SUGGESTED logical alternative. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 7 10:01:38 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:01:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: References: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> Message-ID: <4D749EF2.3070807@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 06:08:53 -0500, Grattan Endicott > wrote: >> to envisage, and I have not seen that Sven provided an illustration, but >> Sven is correct in principle. > > A challenge! Suggested places where you want L73 instead of L16: > > One player to partner: "I think you should accept that insufficient bid". > Violates L73, but L16 does not disallow the use of this information > (because L16 addresses only the use of UI for calls and plays). For the > same reason: Defender says, "Your spades are good", whereupon other > defender claims. > Two very good examples. because the receiving partner does not select a "call or play", but rather some action. However, if we wish to apply L12, this means we are noticing some damage. And damage can only ensue when there has been a change of score - which can only occur when there has been a change of call or play. This settles the claim case. Either the claim is good, and then nothing else that claimer could have done would have led to a different score, or there is something the claimer could have played without the UI, and that also means the claim is bad. So I cannot envisage needing L12 on this one, the claim law is enough (together with the assumption that if the player did not claim, he was not certain enough of his line of play, so the less successful line needs to be considered). It also settles most of the IB cases. If the player accepts the illegal suggestion of accepting the IB, then he needs to make a further call. If that call is, itself, insufficient, then he has made a call based on the UI, and L16 applies. Only if he accepts and then makes a sufficient call (one that would be sufficient even without the IB), or passes, do we get to a situation where L16 would not apply. But in that case, the opponenet (himself an IBer) has not been damaged, since he has been let off the hook without a penalty. So I really think that there cannot be any cases where L16 does not applly, and yet a L12 rectification would be needed to address a case of UI. > I announce transfer. My partner does not expect me to say this. Is this > AI? According to L16, yes, because it is part of the legal procedures of > the game. L73A rules out all communication between partners except for > calls and plays. (This is a little awkward for things like "no spades > partner?" or "You are in dummy." So we use L16 for those. But L73 works > really well for announcements.) > I really don't see why L16 does not apply. > I pick up my hand and say I have 9 spades. My partner has not yet taken > his hand from the board. This is AI according to L16, because it is > information I have before I take my hand from the board. Does L73B rule > this out? Ignoring the definition of "extraneous" in L16, it does. Maybe a > better example is the opponent opens 2D Flannery and my partner reminds me > of our defense to Flannery before I have taken my hand from the board. > This is clearly ruled out by L73A because the auction has started. > And why should it not be dealt with using L16? > > So L16 is not a stand-alone law. It would be nice to have all of the AI/UI > laws in one place. Other AI/UI laws probably include L40A2 and L75. Also, > the definition of "extraneous" in the definitions is useful when you don't > want the L16 definition. If you ignore the contradictions, the current > mish-mash of laws rules out almost all improper uses of information. A > purist might not like all of the contradictions, but in practice they > allow us to use whichever law works best. Yes of course they do. But my point is that L12 does not set out a clear definition of what the AS should be, whereas L16 does. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 7 15:31:05 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:31:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> On Mar 6, 2011, at 4:25 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > But this player, with his 7C, can only give as a reason that he "knew" > partner must have had a solid minor, since he could not bid 4C or 5C. > And he only knew that partner had something from the hesitation. > > [Paul Lamford] There were many possible reasons for the break in tempo > over 3S in the example I gave. His partner might well have had a hand > that could not bid 4C, but 5C would certainly have been natural. The > chance of 7C being successful was therefore about the same as the next > Pope being called Elvis, but on this occasion partner had the right > cards. One might argue that 4NT would be a demonstrably suggested > bid - > clearly pick a minor - and you could argue that 5NT was as well. But, > no, 7C is not demonstrably suggested to anyone. If the TFLB meant > "demonstrably suggested to the warped mind of the person in question" > it would have said so. Linked with "logical alternative" it implies a > rational peer making a rationally argued choice which uses the UI. > Now, > there will indeed be bids that breach Law 16B, but this is not one of > them. Law 73C is an essential backstop because we do not like the idea > that someone can gamble when they have UI. I share this antipathy, and > Law 73 does a good job of dealing with the problem. We could solve this debate by a minor rewording of L16B1(a), changing, "...may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information," to, "may not choose one that could have demonstrably have been suggested over some logical alternative by the extraneous information." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 7 15:55:13 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:55:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> References: <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D74F1D1.70707@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/03/2011 15:31, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Mar 6, 2011, at 4:25 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> [Herman De Wael] >> But this player, with his 7C, can only give as a reason that he "knew" >> partner must have had a solid minor, since he could not bid 4C or 5C. >> And he only knew that partner had something from the hesitation. >> >> [Paul Lamford] There were many possible reasons for the break in tempo >> over 3S in the example I gave. His partner might well have had a hand >> that could not bid 4C, but 5C would certainly have been natural. The >> chance of 7C being successful was therefore about the same as the next >> Pope being called Elvis Who knows ? This guy has a tendency to be considered alive by his followers, a long time after his passing out, and this would fit to a pope, wouldn't it ? >> , but on this occasion partner had the right >> cards. One might argue that 4NT would be a demonstrably suggested >> bid - >> clearly pick a minor - and you could argue that 5NT was as well. But, >> no, 7C is not demonstrably suggested to anyone. If the TFLB meant >> "demonstrably suggested to the warped mind of the person in question" >> it would have said so. Linked with "logical alternative" it implies a >> rational peer making a rationally argued choice which uses the UI. >> Now, >> there will indeed be bids that breach Law 16B, but this is not one of >> them. Law 73C is an essential backstop because we do not like the idea >> that someone can gamble when they have UI. I share this antipathy, and >> Law 73 does a good job of dealing with the problem. > We could solve this debate by a minor rewording of L16B1(a), > changing, "...may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information," to, "may not choose one that could have demonstrably > have been suggested over some logical alternative by the extraneous > information." > AG : agree with the rewording, and I would also like some guidelines about what is suggested in some canonical cases (there's the Pope again !) e.g. some blml contributors consider that when a player makes a moderately strength-showing bid (e.g. a limit 1S-3S) after a tempo, he thought "more" rather than "less", whence "more" was suggested. However, a player who's conscious of the problems that he might give to partner and of this reasoning would avoid bidding "only three", and if this player bid three after a tempo, it would just mean the contrary. And of course the alternative reasoning could go forever. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Mon Mar 7 16:03:59 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:03:59 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> References: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1427980791.1459746.1299510239704.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 6, 2011, at 4:25 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > > > [Herman De Wael] > > But this player, with his 7C, can only give as a reason that he "knew" > > partner must have had a solid minor, since he could not bid 4C or 5C. > > And he only knew that partner had something from the hesitation. > > > > [Paul Lamford] There were many possible reasons for the break in tempo > > over 3S in the example I gave. His partner might well have had a hand > > that could not bid 4C, but 5C would certainly have been natural. The > > chance of 7C being successful was therefore about the same as the next > > Pope being called Elvis, but on this occasion partner had the right > > cards. One might argue that 4NT would be a demonstrably suggested > > bid - > > clearly pick a minor - and you could argue that 5NT was as well. But, > > no, 7C is not demonstrably suggested to anyone. If the TFLB meant > > "demonstrably suggested to the warped mind of the person in question" > > it would have said so. Linked with "logical alternative" it implies a > > rational peer making a rationally argued choice which uses the UI. > > Now, > > there will indeed be bids that breach Law 16B, but this is not one of > > them. Law 73C is an essential backstop because we do not like the idea > > that someone can gamble when they have UI. I share this antipathy, and > > Law 73 does a good job of dealing with the problem. > > We could solve this debate by a minor rewording of L16B1(a), > changing, "...may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information," to, "may not choose one that could have demonstrably > have been suggested over some logical alternative by the extraneous > information." I guess we could nitpick the wording, but I support this approach: just disallow anything demonstrably suggested by the UI, logical alternative or not. Thomas From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 7 23:03:41 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:03:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: "She walked into my office like a centipede with ninety- eight missing legs." Robert Frick: >..... >I announce transfer. My partner does not expect me to say >this. Is this AI? According to L16, yes, because it is part >of the legal procedures of the game. >..... Richard Hills: RTFLB. According to Law 16 this is not AI, this is UI. A person who is (arguably) a Director should not paraphrase a key clause of Law 16 from memory. Law 16A1(c), Players' Use of Information: "A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (=+=but see B1 following=+=); or" Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "but, prep. Except, without, outside of or apart from" Law 16B1(a), Extraneous Information from Partner: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." Richard Hills: Key to Law 16B1(a) is "suggest a call or play, as for example", so the items which follow in Law 16B1(a) are an incomplete but indicative listing of call or play suggestions. It is weakly analogous (and hence a logical fallacy) to compare a woman to a centipede. It is strongly analogous (and hence drawn within the scope of Law 16B1(a)) to compare "an unexpected* announcement of a transfer or failure to announce a transfer" with "an unexpected* alert or failure to alert". What's the problem? The problem, as David Burn noted in an earlier discussion of Law 16B1(a) in 2010 is that writing Laws in the mode of Including But Not Limited To means that there is ambiguity about whether a particular case is relevantly strongly analogous or irrelevantly weakly analogous. Steve Willner, 2nd June 2010: >>>..... >>>When examples are given, other things can be included, >>>but they have to be of the same type as the examples >>>given. In L16B1, all the examples are things that are >>>deprecated, >>>..... Steve Willner, 4th June 2010: >>..... >>I was, I concede, mistaken about the nature of the >>examples in L16B1, >>..... Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 8 02:31:02 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:31:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:03:41 -0500, wrote: > > "She walked into my office like a centipede with ninety- > eight missing legs." > > Robert Frick: > >> ..... >> I announce transfer. My partner does not expect me to say >> this. Is this AI? According to L16, yes, because it is part >> of the legal procedures of the game. >> ..... > > Richard Hills: > > RTFLB. According to Law 16 this is not AI, this is UI. A > person who is (arguably) a Director should not paraphrase a > key clause of Law 16 from memory. > > Law 16A1(c), Players' Use of Information: > > "A player may use information in the auction or play if: > it is information specified in any law or regulation to be > authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from > the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in > regulations (=+=but see B1 following=+=); or" > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "but, prep. Except, without, outside of or apart from" > > Law 16B1(a), Extraneous Information from Partner: > > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that may suggest a call or play, as for example > by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an > unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable > hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, > movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from > among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have > been suggested over another by the extraneous information. > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action." > > Richard Hills: > > Key to Law 16B1(a) is "suggest a call or play, as for > example", so the items which follow in Law 16B1(a) are an > incomplete but indicative listing of call or play > suggestions. > > It is weakly analogous (and hence a logical fallacy) to > compare a woman to a centipede. > > It is strongly analogous (and hence drawn within the scope > of Law 16B1(a)) to compare "an unexpected* announcement of > a transfer or failure to announce a transfer" with "an > unexpected* alert or failure to alert". > > What's the problem? L16B begins.... > "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous > information that may suggest a call or play.... So the question becomes if an unexpected announcement is extraneous. If you accept the definition in L16A, it is not. If you accept the definition in the definitions, it still isn't. Because it is part of the lawful procedures of the game. So L16B doesn't kick in. If it is not part of the lawful procedures of the game, then it becomes unauthorized information and we use L16C to handle the situation when you hear the opponents make an unexpected alert. I don't think you want that. So you are saying that the things in L16B are not just examples, even though they are explicitly called examples. Instead, where they contradict L16A, you are saying they should be taken as having precedence. Of course, given the problems in L16A, that's probably a good idea. It's still strange. And it doesn't even work. Who thinks all remarks are extraneous? Who thinks all questions are extraneous? And you are saying that L16B1 should be read as saying that that list AND THINGS LIKE WHAT IS ON THAT LIST get treated with the procedures of L16B1. There is a real danger in that. For example, when a player says "no spades, partner?", is that a remark? I think so. Or flexibility to get to what we know is the right answer before we even read the laws. Which is needed, because L16 is written so badly we don't really want to use it for guidance. > > The problem, as David Burn noted in an earlier discussion > of Law 16B1(a) in 2010 is that writing Laws in the mode of > Including But Not Limited To means that there is ambiguity > about whether a particular case is relevantly strongly > analogous or irrelevantly weakly analogous. > > Steve Willner, 2nd June 2010: > >>>> ..... >>>> When examples are given, other things can be included, >>>> but they have to be of the same type as the examples >>>> given. In L16B1, all the examples are things that are >>>> deprecated, >>>> ..... > > Steve Willner, 4th June 2010: > >>> ..... >>> I was, I concede, mistaken about the nature of the >>> examples in L16B1, >>> ..... > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 8 04:12:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:12:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pooh-Bah: "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." Robert Frick: >..... >So you are saying that the things in L16B are not just >examples, even though they are explicitly called examples. Richard Hills: In Law 16B1(a) they are _indicative_ examples, included to clarify for grass-roots Directors what would otherwise be a bald and unconvincing hypothetical 2018 Law 16B1(a): "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." This hypothetical 2018 Law 16B1(a) is identical in meaning to the current 2007 Law 16B1(a), but the hypothetical Law is easier to misinterpret and misapply. Robert Frick: >Instead, where they contradict L16A, you are saying they >should be taken as having precedence. Richard Hills: No, another careless paraphrase. Only Law 16A1(c) -- not the whole of Law 16A -- is subordinate to Law 16B1, because that is what the Law 16A1(c) phrase "(but see B1 following)" means. Robert Frick: >..... >Who thinks all remarks are extraneous? >Who thinks all questions are extraneous? Richard Hills: I do. But whether an extraneous remark or question provides useful unauthorised information to partner may or may not be true. And whether partner then selects a demonstrably suggested logical alternative also may or may not be true. Robert Frick: >And you are saying that L16B1 should be read as saying that >that list AND THINGS LIKE WHAT IS ON THAT LIST get treated >with the procedures of L16B1. There is a real danger in that. >For example, when a player says "no spades, partner?", is >that a remark? I think so. Law 61B3, Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke: "Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (=+=at the risk of creating unauthorized information=+=). Richard Hills: What's the problem? In addition to Law 16B1, the relevant Law 61B3 specifically states that "no spades, partner?" may create useful unauthorised information. Robert Frick: >Or flexibility to get to what we know is the right answer >before we even read the laws. Which is needed, Richard Hills: Which is not needed. The WBF Code of Practice specifically prohibits the concept of pre-judging a ruling, then torturing the Laws later to justify that pre-judged outcome. Robert Frick: >because L16 is written so badly we don't really want to use it >for guidance. Richard Hills: Because Law 16 is written sufficiently effectively (although, of course, minor improvements are possible in 2018) that Bob is one of the very few blmlers who misunderstand its concepts. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Tue Mar 8 14:08:38 2011 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:08:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mis question Message-ID: <9882F1B1269147F8BCA5B18FDAEF6D6E@PCdeOlivier> any team event, fifth segment of the day, everybody tired ... make your mind on this one before readind Q2, please, Q1 EW, you play slam in hearts, vulenrable and need to pick up the trumps with : 932 AK8654 usually you cash AK, but, you take the lead in dummy and lead the H2, for the 10, king and jack, what next? if you cross to dummy and play heart, you see the H7 on your rigth, Ok? Q2 Then, if you cash the heart ace, discard on you right, RHO played the 10 with Q107, a grosvenor for sure! ... i tell you everybody is tired! bidding was : now some more : 2H (weak) 2NT 4H (6H now, before the lead, the RHO of declarer (the Q107 holder) ask "does 4H garantees AKQxxx of H?" answer : "with AKQxxx i bid 3NT" which is ok with the system now, the player cash AK of H and complains about the question, for sure!!! RHO is a "fair" player for what i know ... How do you rule? 26 imp's at stake against 5H= in the other room... score EW, declarer side Score NS, defender side penalty for NS and next, il you says the score stands, what do you think of an declarer's appeal? Q3 Now, LHO'singleton is not the J but a small one, do you rule 6H making? how often? Thx Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5932 (20110307) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5936 (20110308) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110308/90d983a7/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Tue Mar 8 16:05:20 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:05:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <1427980791.1459746.1299510239704.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no><4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be><8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> <1427980791.1459746.1299510239704.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <8CDABB960704463-3184-E1B6@webmail-d147.sysops.aol.com> [Thomas Dehn] I guess we could nitpick the wording, but I support this approach: just disallow anything demonstrably suggested by the UI, logical alternative or not. [Paul Lamford] I would disallow any bid that, in the opinion of the TD, attempts to use the UI. No need for demonstrably, no need for logical, no need for polls. So, after 1S - 3S (at the speed of the Nycticebus), if the player now has a choice between Pass and 4S, just give him the less successful one. If he has an automatic 4S, no problem. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 8 16:31:45 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:31:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDABB960704463-3184-E1B6@webmail-d147.sysops.aol.com> References: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be> <000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> <1427980791.1459746.1299510239704.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <8CDABB960704463-3184-E1B6@webmail-d147.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:05:20 -0500, wrote: > [Thomas Dehn] > I guess we could nitpick the wording, but I support this approach: just > disallow anything demonstrably suggested by the UI, logical alternative > or not. I once asked about the problem of when dummy points out a lead out of turn. Ton's answer was that the declarer probably would have noticed. So that would suggest against your idea. Same thing, last night one defender said lead a diamond. The other defender has a very obvious diamond lead, not to mention at that point in the hand could figure out things better than partner. So I allowed a diamond lead. So your suggestion seems to be against current practice. But, I like it, for cases like that, where logical alternative isn't really the question. I pretty much follow it for when the defender who is not making a choice draws attention to one of the choices. To-be-dummy: "So one of his choices is to put down his hand as dummy and I play the hand?" Bob: "Not any more." > > [Paul Lamford] > I would disallow any bid that, in the opinion of the TD, attempts to > use the UI. No need for demonstrably, no need for logical, no need for > polls. So, after 1S - 3S (at the speed of the Nycticebus), if the > player now has a choice between Pass and 4S, just give him the less > successful one. If he has an automatic 4S, no problem. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 8 16:32:35 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:32:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: L16A should say, in one place, what information players are allowed to use (AI) and what information players are not allowed to use (UI). L16A needs to start with distinguishing information from partner versus information from opponents. It does not. So it fails. To my knowledge, no one actually uses L16A -- we know what is AI and what is UI. If there are ambiguities in our understanding, the WBFLC settles them. Or they remain. So the question is merely academic -- what does L16A actually say? (I guess the discussion could be destressing to someone who felt it was important to always follow the laws.) Example. Consider partner saying "I have the ace of diamonds" and opponent saying "I have the ace of diamonds". Whatever else, these have to have the same status by L16A. In fact, according to L16A, they are both AI to a player if they are said before the player takes his hand from the board, and both are UI afterwards. Your post considers alerts and announcements of transfers. We all know the correct answer -- alerts and announcements from partner are UI, and alerts and announcements from the opponents are AI. L16A can never get to this answer. And in fact, L16A is clear that, as part of the procedures of the game, those are AI. So my partner alerts my bid. That is AI to me. I never get to L16B1, because it concerns only the situation where my partner has given me extraneous information. L16B1 says, quite clearly, that unexpected alerts from partner are UI. That just flatly contradicts L16A. I don't know if the principle of specificity applies here, but the principle of known answer does -- the known-to-be-correct answer is found in L16B1, so we give L16B1 precedence when we are considering alerts. There are a few difficulties with this. One, as you note below, is that the examples in L16B1 are clearly stated just to be examples. You call them indicative, placed only to help directors. The other is that we do not want the examples in L16B1 to have force of law -- we do not want all questions and remarks to be UI. So, to rule out alerts from partner as AI, you have to give the examples in L16B1 force of law, and precedence. And do that for some of the examples and not others. This is gerrymandering of Hillian proportions. And there is still the problem that L16B1 doesn't mention announcements. Your solution, which perhaps you want to clarify, is something to the effect of allowing analogies, so that if L16B1 says alerts are UI, then announcements are too. I merely noted, that (1) you probably want to allow analogies only for selected examples and (2) you are setting a precedent that you probably do not want to allow, allowing me and other directors to decide which analogies are strong enough for use. I think it is a lot easier to say that L16A is worthless and move on. There are a lot of other AI/UI laws in the books. We can use the principle of known answer to determine precedence in each case and pretend that the laws lead to the right answer most of the time. My example here is that partner asks if I have no more spades. I then realize I have revoked. Am I allowed to change my play? If the list of examples in L16B1 is taken as force of law list of UI, this is a question and hence L16B1 requires me to select from my logical alternatives one not suggested by the question. Of course, we use the principle of known answer to say that the list in L16B1 is just indicative and L16A applies. > Pooh-Bah: > > "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic > verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing > narrative." > > Robert Frick: > >> ..... >> So you are saying that the things in L16B are not just >> examples, even though they are explicitly called examples. > > Richard Hills: > > In Law 16B1(a) they are _indicative_ examples, included to > clarify for grass-roots Directors what would otherwise be a > bald and unconvincing hypothetical 2018 Law 16B1(a): > > "After a player makes available to his partner > extraneous information that may suggest a call > or play, the partner may not choose from among > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably > have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information." > > This hypothetical 2018 Law 16B1(a) is identical in meaning > to the current 2007 Law 16B1(a), but the hypothetical Law > is easier to misinterpret and misapply. > > Robert Frick: > >> Instead, where they contradict L16A, you are saying they >> should be taken as having precedence. > > Richard Hills: > > No, another careless paraphrase. Only Law 16A1(c) -- not > the whole of Law 16A -- is subordinate to Law 16B1, because > that is what the Law 16A1(c) phrase "(but see B1 following)" > means. > > Robert Frick: > >> ..... >> Who thinks all remarks are extraneous? >> Who thinks all questions are extraneous? > > Richard Hills: > > I do. But whether an extraneous remark or question provides > useful unauthorised information to partner may or may not be > true. And whether partner then selects a demonstrably > suggested logical alternative also may or may not be true. > > Robert Frick: > >> And you are saying that L16B1 should be read as saying that >> that list AND THINGS LIKE WHAT IS ON THAT LIST get treated >> with the procedures of L16B1. There is a real danger in that. >> For example, when a player says "no spades, partner?", is >> that a remark? I think so. > > Law 61B3, Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke: > > "Defenders may ask declarer and, unless > prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may > ask one another (=+=at the risk of creating > unauthorized information=+=). > > Richard Hills: > > What's the problem? In addition to Law 16B1, the relevant Law > 61B3 specifically states that "no spades, partner?" may create > useful unauthorised information. > > Robert Frick: > >> Or flexibility to get to what we know is the right answer >> before we even read the laws. Which is needed, > > Richard Hills: > > Which is not needed. The WBF Code of Practice specifically > prohibits the concept of pre-judging a ruling, then torturing > the Laws later to justify that pre-judged outcome. > > Robert Frick: > >> because L16 is written so badly we don't really want to use it >> for guidance. > > Richard Hills: > > Because Law 16 is written sufficiently effectively (although, > of course, minor improvements are possible in 2018) that Bob > is one of the very few blmlers who misunderstand its concepts. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From blml at arcor.de Tue Mar 8 16:56:18 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:56:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> References: <4E123E430C364EE7A960824848DF2126@Thain> <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be> <000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no> <4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be> <8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> <1427980791.1459746.1299510239704.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <8CDABB960704463-3184-E1B6@webmail-d147.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <305613449.1533083.1299599778077.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested > that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider > a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. > A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing > the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did > consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto > to be a peer of Z as a player. In my book, a peer of a player is somebody who has a similar playing strength, and who uses a similar overall approach to bidding. For example, I am not a peer of Eric because I am not nearly as conservative a bidder as Eric. For example, I will open many hands which Eric will pass, and that then will impact subsequent bidding. The point of consulting peers is to identify logical alternatives. That won't work well if you consult people who have a totally different style for bidding. Thomas From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Mar 9 02:22:27 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:22:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mis question In-Reply-To: <9882F1B1269147F8BCA5B18FDAEF6D6E@PCdeOlivier> References: <9882F1B1269147F8BCA5B18FDAEF6D6E@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: <25E8086F368E46B8B8B77BD4D9A9E12A@erdos> olivier.beauvillain writes: >Q1 >EW, you play slam in hearts, vulenrable and need to pick up the trumps with : >932 >AK8654 >usually you cash AK, but, you take the lead in dummy and lead the H2, for the >10, king and jack, >what next? >if you cross to dummy and play heart, you see the H7 on your rigth, I still cash the ace; it's not a good idea to take a line of play which you could not have taken without the opponents' help. Q2 Then, if you cash the heart ace, discard on you right, RHO played the 10 with Q107, a grosvenor for sure! ... i tell you everybody is tired! bidding was : now some more : 2H (weak) 2NT 4H (6H now, before the lead, the RHO of declarer (the Q107 holder) ask "does 4H garantees AKQxxx of H?" answer : "with AKQxxx i bid 3NT" which is ok with the system now, the player cash AK of H and complains about the question, for sure!!! RHO is a "fair" player for what i know ... How do you rule? 26 imp's at stake against 5H= in the other room... score EW, declarer side Score NS, defender side penalty for NS and next, il you says the score stands, what do you think of an declarer's appeal? Q3 Now, LHO'singleton is not the J but a small one, do you rule 6H making? how often? Thx Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5932 (20110307) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5936 (20110308) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Mar 9 03:50:05 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:50:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Robert says: cut some speculations: >My example here is that partner asks if I have no more spades. I then >realize I have revoked. Am I allowed to change my play? If the list of >examples in L16B1 is taken as force of law list of UI, this is a question >and hence L16B1 requires me to select from my logical alternatives one not >suggested by the question. Of course, we use the principle of known answer >to say that the list in L16B1 is just indicative and L16A applies. > > You have attempted to revoke so long as partner has asked in time. Are you using an official copy of the FLB? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > Pooh-Bah: > > > > "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic > > verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing > > narrative." > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> ..... > >> So you are saying that the things in L16B are not just > >> examples, even though they are explicitly called examples. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In Law 16B1(a) they are _indicative_ examples, included to > > clarify for grass-roots Directors what would otherwise be a > > bald and unconvincing hypothetical 2018 Law 16B1(a): > > > > "After a player makes available to his partner > > extraneous information that may suggest a call > > or play, the partner may not choose from among > > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably > > have been suggested over another by the > > extraneous information." > > > > This hypothetical 2018 Law 16B1(a) is identical in meaning > > to the current 2007 Law 16B1(a), but the hypothetical Law > > is easier to misinterpret and misapply. > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> Instead, where they contradict L16A, you are saying they > >> should be taken as having precedence. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > No, another careless paraphrase. Only Law 16A1(c) -- not > > the whole of Law 16A -- is subordinate to Law 16B1, because > > that is what the Law 16A1(c) phrase "(but see B1 following)" > > means. > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> ..... > >> Who thinks all remarks are extraneous? > >> Who thinks all questions are extraneous? > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > I do. But whether an extraneous remark or question provides > > useful unauthorised information to partner may or may not be > > true. And whether partner then selects a demonstrably > > suggested logical alternative also may or may not be true. > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> And you are saying that L16B1 should be read as saying that > >> that list AND THINGS LIKE WHAT IS ON THAT LIST get treated > >> with the procedures of L16B1. There is a real danger in that. > >> For example, when a player says "no spades, partner?", is > >> that a remark? I think so. > > > > Law 61B3, Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke: > > > > "Defenders may ask declarer and, unless > > prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may > > ask one another (=+=at the risk of creating > > unauthorized information=+=). > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > What's the problem? In addition to Law 16B1, the relevant Law > > 61B3 specifically states that "no spades, partner?" may create > > useful unauthorised information. > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> Or flexibility to get to what we know is the right answer > >> before we even read the laws. Which is needed, > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Which is not needed. The WBF Code of Practice specifically > > prohibits the concept of pre-judging a ruling, then torturing > > the Laws later to justify that pre-judged outcome. > > > > Robert Frick: > > > >> because L16 is written so badly we don't really want to use it > >> for guidance. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > Because Law 16 is written sufficiently effectively (although, > > of course, minor improvements are possible in 2018) that Bob > > is one of the very few blmlers who misunderstand its concepts. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard Hills > > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > > Level 5 Aqua, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > > DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > > advise > > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > > email, > > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > > privileged > > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > > privacy > > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > > See: > > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > >-- >somepsychology.com >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From madam at civilradio.hu Wed Mar 9 09:41:24 2011 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 09:41:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a misinformation case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79133075158C490F9793191B37ACA707@adam> MP-pairs, played with screens Board 31 Dlr: South Vul: NS AKT93 87 Q9632 9 82 Q7654 Q4 K653 T85 J74 KT8753 Q J AJT92 AK AJ642 The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1C(1) 2C (2) 2S(3) pass 3H(4) pass 4D(5) pass 5C(6) passz 6D all pass Explanations: (1) precision, 16+, any distribution (2) west to south: clubs or three-suiter without clubs east to north: clubs (EW's system card supports west's statement, and east admits she forgot to add the second part) (3) natural, game-force (4), (5) natural bids (6) south means this natural, looking for a fit somewhere, but north thinks it is a cue-bid for diamonds Result: 6D -2, -200 TD was called after the play ended. North said if he had been informed about the meaning of 2c, ha may have interpreted 5C as natural, and than bid only 5D. He added that in that case, he may have tried to find 3NT by bidding 3S indtead of 4D. Your decision please :) Adam Magyar From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Mar 9 09:53:18 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:53:18 +0000 Subject: [BLML] a misinformation case In-Reply-To: <79133075158C490F9793191B37ACA707@adam> References: <79133075158C490F9793191B37ACA707@adam> Message-ID: This strikes me as the kind of misunderstanding that might have occurred even had there been no opposing bidding. I suppose though that the two explanations ensured that there would be a misunderstanding any time South tried to bid clubs naturally. Gordon Rainsford On 9 Mar 2011, at 08:41, Magyar ?d?m wrote: > MP-pairs, played with screens > Board 31 > Dlr: South > Vul: NS > > AKT93 > 87 > Q9632 > 9 > 82 Q7654 > Q4 K653 > T85 J74 > KT8753 Q > J > AJT92 > AK > AJ642 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1C(1) > 2C (2) 2S(3) pass 3H(4) > pass 4D(5) pass 5C(6) > passz 6D all pass > > Explanations: > > (1) precision, 16+, any distribution > (2) west to south: clubs or three-suiter without clubs > east to north: clubs > (EW's system card supports west's statement, and east admits > she forgot > to add the second part) > (3) natural, game-force > (4), (5) natural bids > (6) south means this natural, looking for a fit somewhere, but > north thinks > it is a cue-bid for diamonds > > Result: 6D -2, -200 > > TD was called after the play ended. North said if he had been > informed about > the meaning of 2c, ha may have interpreted 5C as natural, and than > bid only > 5D. He added that in that case, he may have tried to find 3NT by > bidding 3S > indtead of 4D. > > Your decision please :) > > Adam Magyar > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 9 10:05:35 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:05:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have snipped away)? See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected (Law 62A). Regards Sven On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > Robert says: > > cut some speculations: > > > >My example here is that partner asks if I have no more spades. I then > >realize I have revoked. Am I allowed to change my play? If the list of > >examples in L16B1 is taken as force of law list of UI, this is a > >question and hence L16B1 requires me to select from my logical > >alternatives one not suggested by the question. Of course, we use the > >principle of known answer to say that the list in L16B1 is just indicative and L16A > applies. > > > > > You have attempted to revoke so long as partner has asked in time. > > Are you using an official copy of the FLB? > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) .......(snip) From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Mar 9 10:11:57 2011 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:11:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mis question Q3 revisited In-Reply-To: <9882F1B1269147F8BCA5B18FDAEF6D6E@PCdeOlivier> References: <9882F1B1269147F8BCA5B18FDAEF6D6E@PCdeOlivier> Message-ID: Q3 was unclear, now you have : 932 AKJ865 with the question, you cash AH, & KH with a discard on your left,, how do you rule? Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: olivier.beauvillain To: Laws Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:08 PM Subject: [BLML] Mis question any team event, fifth segment of the day, everybody tired ... make your mind on this one before readind Q2, please, Q1 EW, you play slam in hearts, vulenrable and need to pick up the trumps with : 932 AK8654 usually you cash AK, but, you take the lead in dummy and lead the H2, for the 10, king and jack, what next? if you cross to dummy and play heart, you see the H7 on your rigth, Ok? Q2 Then, if you cash the heart ace, discard on you right, RHO played the 10 with Q107, a grosvenor for sure! ... i tell you everybody is tired! bidding was : now some more : 2H (weak) 2NT 4H (6H now, before the lead, the RHO of declarer (the Q107 holder) ask "does 4H garantees AKQxxx of H?" answer : "with AKQxxx i bid 3NT" which is ok with the system now, the player cash AK of H and complains about the question, for sure!!! RHO is a "fair" player for what i know ... How do you rule? 26 imp's at stake against 5H= in the other room... score EW, declarer side Score NS, defender side penalty for NS and next, il you says the score stands, what do you think of an declarer's appeal? Q3 Now, LHO'singleton is not the J but a small one, do you rule 6H making? how often? Thx Olivier Beauvillain __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5932 (20110307) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5936 (20110308) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5936 (20110308) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5936 (20110308) __________ Le message a iti virifii par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com __________ Information provenant d'ESET Smart Security, version de la base des signatures de virus 5937 (20110308) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110309/feabd9c0/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 9 11:33:00 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:33:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a misinformation case In-Reply-To: <79133075158C490F9793191B37ACA707@adam> References: <79133075158C490F9793191B37ACA707@adam> Message-ID: <4D77575C.5070709@ulb.ac.be> Le 9/03/2011 9:41, Magyar ?d?m a ?crit : > MP-pairs, played with screens > Board 31 > Dlr: South > Vul: NS > > AKT93 > 87 > Q9632 > 9 > 82 Q7654 > Q4 K653 > T85 J74 > KT8753 Q > J > AJT92 > AK > AJ642 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1C(1) > 2C (2) 2S(3) pass 3H(4) > pass 4D(5) pass 5C(6) > passz 6D all pass > > Explanations: > > (1) precision, 16+, any distribution > (2) west to south: clubs or three-suiter without clubs > east to north: clubs > (EW's system card supports west's statement, and east admits she forgot > to add the second part) > (3) natural, game-force > (4), (5) natural bids > (6) south means this natural, looking for a fit somewhere, but north thinks > it is a cue-bid for diamonds > > Result: 6D -2, -200 > > TD was called after the play ended. North said if he had been informed about > the meaning of 2c, ha may have interpreted 5C as natural, and than bid only > 5D. He added that in that case, he may have tried to find 3NT by bidding 3S > indtead of 4D. > > Your decision please :) > AG : misinformation there is. Now, it seems that the 2C bid, the round lost in opening an artificial club, and the rank of the suits really preempted NS into missing 3NT. North's claim about the possible 3S bid (had he known) is weak. After all, North acted on the basis of a club suit, and West indeed had clubs. Having to bid a self-preempting 2S over 2C with a GF two-suiter is a weak part of the system. I rule that a correct explanation would not have allowed NS to find 3NT. I also rule that the final contract would probably have been different had 5C been interpreted correctly, and that's a consequence of the MI. Score changed to 5D-1. Best regards Alain From blml at arcor.de Wed Mar 9 12:14:44 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:14:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] a misinformation case Message-ID: <302637540.15871.1299669284239.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Magyar ?d?m wrote: > MP-pairs, played with screens > Board 31 > Dlr: South > Vul: NS > > AKT93 > 87 > Q9632 > 9 > 82 Q7654 > Q4 K653 > T85 J74 > KT8753 Q > J > AJT92 > AK > AJ642 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1C(1) > 2C (2) 2S(3) pass 3H(4) > pass 4D(5) pass 5C(6) > passz 6D all pass > > Explanations: > > (1) precision, 16+, any distribution > (2) west to south: clubs or three-suiter without clubs > east to north: clubs > (EW's system card supports west's statement, and east admits she forgot > to add the second part) > (3) natural, game-force > (4), (5) natural bids > (6) south means this natural, looking for a fit somewhere, but north thinks > it is a cue-bid for diamonds > > Result: 6D -2, -200 > > TD was called after the play ended. North said if he had been informed > about > the meaning of 2c, ha may have interpreted 5C as natural, and than bid only > 5D. He added that in that case, he may have tried to find 3NT by bidding 3S > indtead of 4D. > > Your decision please :) According to the above description, there was MI. Thus the TD has to evaluate what would have been "likely had the irregularity not occurred" or "at all probable". L12, L21B3. I don't see how the bidding up to 4D by N was affected by the MI. S had correct information when he bid 5C. Thus, the question is whether it is "likely had the irregularity not occurred" or "at all probable" that N would not have bid 6D with the correct information. N got the MI that 2C showed clubs, thus N's conclusion that S made a slam try for diamonds seems to have been based upon the MI. I'd expect to arrive at the conclusion that a final contract of 5D was "likely had the irregularity not occurred", but I'd need a bit more information on N/S's systemic agreements before that. The TD then would also have to evaluate what result is likely in 5D, rather than merely take the number of tricks from the 6D contract. I think that 5D might be made. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 9 14:52:08 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:52:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <8CDABB960704463-3184-E1B6@webmail-d147.sysops.aol.com> References: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no><4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be><8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com> <1427980791.1459746.1299510239704.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <8CDABB960704463-3184-E1B6@webmail-d147.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <02FF4FBC-772E-4BB1-9650-7C31DFCEC75A@starpower.net> On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:05 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Thomas Dehn] > I guess we could nitpick the wording, but I support this approach: > just > disallow anything demonstrably suggested by the UI, logical > alternative > or not. > > [Paul Lamford] > I would disallow any bid that, in the opinion of the TD, attempts to > use the UI. No need for demonstrably, no need for logical, no need for > polls. So, after 1S - 3S (at the speed of the Nycticebus), if the > player now has a choice between Pass and 4S, just give him the less > successful one. If he has an automatic 4S, no problem. I strongly disagree. We must not outlaw thinking. That means that the laws must not be written in such a way that a player can be so "tainted" by UI that he has no legal action available, i.e. finds himself in a situation in which any successful choice is subject to being reversed by adjudication, which seems to be what Paul proposes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 9 16:13:07 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:13:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBL Appeals Booklets Message-ID: <4D779903.70701@skynet.be> Of Sanremo (2009) and Oostende (2010) have been published on the EBL website. Follow departments - appeals -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 9 22:24:26 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:24:26 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick, March 2011: >>>I think it is a lot easier to say that L16A is >>>worthless and move on. Tim West-Meads, April 2005: >>I suspect it's because the regs are a complete >>pig's breakfast. >> >>Tim Grattan Endicott, April 2005: >+=+ Any particular complete pigs? +=+ Tim West-Meads I didn't have any specifically in mind. It is entirely possible that a prized herd of Gloucester Old Spots is fed on classier muck than is a run-of- the-mill mobile sausage factory. The regs are closer to sausage factory than Gloucester Old Spot if that helps. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gampas at aol.com Thu Mar 10 01:20:00 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:20:00 -0500 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? In-Reply-To: <02FF4FBC-772E-4BB1-9650-7C31DFCEC75A@starpower.net> References: <71E1C8F3-E784-4F6B-B939-A1209D53E53E@starpower.net> <4D709C2A.9080402@skynet.be> <000801cbda46$e0cb8030$a2628090$@no> <4D70AAFE.5080606@skynet.be><000f01cbda4e$dcbe14a0$963a3de0$@no><4D70DAC2.30901@skynet.be><8CDA9F78B29097E-1DBC-192B8@webmail-d006.sysops.aol.com><1427980791.1459746.1299510239704.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net><8CDABB960704463-3184-E1B6@webmail-d147.sysops.aol.com> <02FF4FBC-772E-4BB1-9650-7C31DFCEC75A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CDACD0070219B4-1DE4-E8FE@webmail-m143.sysops.aol.com> [Thomas Dehn]That means that the laws must not be written in such a way that a player can be so "tainted" by UI that he has no legal action available, i.e. finds himself in a situation in which any successful choice is subject to being reversed by adjudication, which seems to be what Paul proposes. [Paul Lamford] Currently the player can be so "tainted" by UI that his choice *might* be reversed by adjudication, if the TD (or an AC) disagrees with his assessment. That is better than allowing a situation where a BIT - which is more likely to mean something to an experienced partnership - allows the player to guess well because nothing is demonstrably suggested. There is a solution for the player - don't give UI and only communicate in the recommended manner. From gampas at aol.com Thu Mar 10 01:33:47 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:33:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] a misinformation case In-Reply-To: <4D77575C.5070709@ulb.ac.be> References: <79133075158C490F9793191B37ACA707@adam> <4D77575C.5070709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8CDACD1F4107796-1DE4-ED2C@webmail-m143.sysops.aol.com> [AG] After all, North acted on the basis of a club suit, and West indeed had clubs [Paul Lamford] I don't think this is relevant; with the correct explanation, North might well have bid differently. The play in 5D would be interesting too. On a presumed QC lead, declarer wins, cashes the diamonds and overtakes the JS, draws the trumps and runs the 8H. East goes in with the king, but declarer counters by ducking, and guesses well on the next round. That seems to get home. This seems one for consulting with players famililar with precision to see how they would bid with the correct information. It looks a horrible one to adjudicate. -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 10:33 Subject: Re: [BLML] a misinformation case Le 9/03/2011 9:41, Magyar ?d?m a ?crit : > MP-pairs, played with screens > Board 31 > Dlr: South > Vul: NS > > AKT93 > 87 > Q9632 > 9 > 82 Q7654 > Q4 K653 > T85 J74 > KT8753 Q > J > AJT92 > AK > AJ642 > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1C(1) > 2C (2) 2S(3) pass 3H(4) > pass 4D(5) pass 5C(6) > passz 6D all pass > > Explanations: > > (1) precision, 16+, any distribution > (2) west to south: clubs or three-suiter without clubs > east to north: clubs > (EW's system card supports west's statement, and east admits she forgot > to add the second part) > (3) natural, game-force > (4), (5) natural bids > (6) south means this natural, looking for a fit somewhere, but north thinks > it is a cue-bid for diamonds > > Result: 6D -2, -200 > > TD was called after the play ended. North said if he had been informed about > the meaning of 2c, ha may have interpreted 5C as natural, and than bid only > 5D. He added that in that case, he may have tried to find 3NT by bidding 3S > indtead of 4D. > > Your decision please :) > AG : misinformation there is. Now, it seems that the 2C bid, the round lost in opening an artificial club, and the rank of the suits really preempted NS into missing 3NT. North's claim about the possible 3S bid (had he known) is weak. After all, North acted on the basis of a club suit, and West indeed had clubs. Having to bid a self-preempting 2S over 2C with a GF two-suiter is a weak part of the system. I rule that a correct explanation would not have allowed NS to find 3NT. I also rule that the final contract would probably have been different had 5C been interpreted correctly, and that's a consequence of the MI. Score changed to 5D-1. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 10 02:02:27 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:02:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gerald Stanley Lee, Crowds (1913): "The men and women that we know may be more or less muddled in their minds with philosophy or with theology, or perhaps they are being deceived by expediency or being bullied by their environment, but they are not wicked; they are out of focus" Robert Frick: >>..... >>because L16 is written so badly we don't really want to use it >>for guidance. >>..... >>Your post considers alerts and announcements of transfers. We >>all know the correct answer -- alerts and announcements from >>partner are UI, and alerts and announcements from the opponents >>are AI. L16A can never get to this answer. And in fact, L16A is >>clear that, as part of the procedures of the game, those are AI. >>..... Tony Musgrove: >Are you using an official copy of the FLB? > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) Richard Hills: Yes, to get into focus Robert Frick should take the time to read what the actual Law 16 actually says before asserting that Law 16 is badly written. Law 16A1(c) is clear that an _expected_ Alert or an _expected_ failure to Alert from partner is AI (and the obvious reason that the Drafting Committee chose to define as AI an _expected_ Alert and an _expected_ failure to Alert was presumably because pard is telling you something that you already knew). Instead it is an _unexpected_ Alert or an _unexpected_ failure to Alert that Law 16B1(a) states is UI (and the obvious reason that the Drafting Committee chose to define as UI an _unexpected_ Alert and an _unexpected_ failure to Alert was presumably because pard is telling you something that you _did not_ already know). Gerald Stanley Lee, Crowds (1913): "They simply cannot manage some of the details ? details like time and place, a detail like being good now, for instance, or like being good here. It is the more practical things like these that trouble people, or they grow mixed in their thoughts about the big goods and the little ones?which shall be first in order of importance or which in the order of time." Richard Hills: And it seems that Robert Frick cannot manage an important detail which appears throughout the Lawbook, the word "but". Indeed, the detailed purposes of Law 16 are very obvious to almost all grass- roots Directors and/or expert Directors. For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an intentional revoke. _But_ pard asking "no spades?" may provide UI that pard is surprised because pard also held very few spades initially (what Edgar Kaplan whimsically named the Extraneous Count convention). Best wishes Richard Hills (1) Except in those very few places where the Regulating Authorities have exercised their Law 61B3 option to bar defenders from asking questions of each other. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 10 07:12:43 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:12:43 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested >>that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider >>a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. >>A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing >>the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did >>consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto >>to be a peer of Z as a player. [snip] Thomas Dehn: >In my book, a peer of a player is somebody who has a similar >playing strength, and who uses a similar overall approach to >bidding. > >For example, I am not a peer of Eric because I am not nearly >as conservative a bidder as Eric. For example, I will open >many hands which Eric will pass, and that then will impact >subsequent bidding. > >The point of consulting peers is to identify logical >alternatives. That won't work well if you consult people who >have a totally different style for bidding. Richard Hills: In the Hills-Jesner partnership Richard Hills is a very conservative bidder, as dealer always passing with a balanced 11 hcp. In the Ali-Hills partnership Richard Hills is a very aggressive bidder, as dealer always bidding 1NT with a balanced 11 hcp. So according to Thomas Dehn a Director should never poll Richard Hills on logical alternatives, since Richard Hills is not a peer of Richard Hills, let alone a peer of anyone else. Pooh-Bah: "It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in- Chief, Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, but I do it!" Best wishes Katisha -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 10 08:17:29 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:17:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <640343194.5866.1299741449767.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested > >>that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider > >>a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. > >>A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing > >>the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did > >>consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto > >>to be a peer of Z as a player. > > [snip] > > Thomas Dehn: > > >In my book, a peer of a player is somebody who has a similar > >playing strength, and who uses a similar overall approach to > >bidding. > > > >For example, I am not a peer of Eric because I am not nearly > >as conservative a bidder as Eric. For example, I will open > >many hands which Eric will pass, and that then will impact > >subsequent bidding. > > > >The point of consulting peers is to identify logical > >alternatives. That won't work well if you consult people who > >have a totally different style for bidding. > > Richard Hills: > > In the Hills-Jesner partnership Richard Hills is a very > conservative bidder, as dealer always passing with a balanced > 11 hcp. > > In the Ali-Hills partnership Richard Hills is a very > aggressive bidder, as dealer always bidding 1NT with a > balanced 11 hcp. Let me guess: the Ali-Hills partnership place a 1NT range that includes 11 HCP, whereas the Hills-Jesner partnership does not. No, that is just a difference in partnership agreements. It is not what I meant with "conservative bidding". > So according to Thomas Dehn a Director should never poll > Richard Hills on logical alternatives, since Richard Hills is > not a peer of Richard Hills, let alone a peer of anyone else. Nah. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 10 10:21:21 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:21:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] a misinformation case In-Reply-To: <8CDACD1F4107796-1DE4-ED2C@webmail-m143.sysops.aol.com> References: <79133075158C490F9793191B37ACA707@adam> <4D77575C.5070709@ulb.ac.be> <8CDACD1F4107796-1DE4-ED2C@webmail-m143.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4D789811.1080808@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/03/2011 1:33, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [AG] After all, North acted on the basis of a club suit, and West > indeed had clubs > > [Paul Lamford] I don't think this is relevant; with the correct > explanation, North might well have bid differently. AG : my point is that there is no reason that he would. To try for 3NT facing a "long/short" club but not facing a 1-suited bid seems so strange. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 10 22:30:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:30:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <640343194.5866.1299741449767.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Ambrose Bierce (1842 - ???), The Devil's Dictionary: Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. Richard Hills: >>In the Hills-Jesner partnership Richard Hills is a very >>conservative bidder, as dealer always passing with a >>balanced 11 hcp. >> >>In the Ali-Hills partnership Richard Hills is a very >>aggressive bidder, as dealer always bidding 1NT with a >>balanced 11 hcp. Thomas Dehn: >Let me guess: the Ali-Hills partnership play a 1NT range >that includes 11 HCP, whereas the Hills-Jesner partnership >does not. > >No, that is just a difference in partnership agreements. >It is not what I meant with "conservative bidding". Richard Hills: Not so fast in jumping to conclusions. In the Ali-Hills partnership Richard Hills is a very aggressive bidder, frequently redoubling contracts to play (only using SOS redoubles as part of the SW1NE convention). In the Hills-Jesner partnership Richard Hills is a very conservative bidder, never redoubling contracts to play.(1) So the point I am trying to make is that "conservative bidding" IS a partnership understanding; a redouble to play is not a logical alternative for the Hills-Jesner partnership because it is not part of "the methods of the partnership". BUT Richard Hills belongs to "the class of players" of Richard Hills even though Richard Hills redoubles to play in other partnerships. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) Of course, Dorothy Jesner enforces this conservative bidding style by removing Richard's redouble cards from his bidding box at the start of the session (temporarily loaning Richard a redouble if the SW1NE convention should come up). For some strange reason Dorothy has an aversion to scores of -1600. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Mar 11 12:42:35 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:42:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rectification for 25B1 Message-ID: <00a201cbdfe1$6ab12120$40136360$@nl> A player changes his call, not according to 25A. The next player accepts it, knowing the consequences. Now this is a 25B1 case, and in 25B3 it is said that the information from his first call is subject to 16D. It does not say law 26 applies. I can live with that, but is it agreed that in this case 26 does not apply? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110311/f600a9e6/attachment.html From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Mar 11 13:01:01 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:01:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Rectification_for_25B1?= In-Reply-To: <00a201cbdfe1$6ab12120$40136360$@nl> References: <00a201cbdfe1$6ab12120$40136360$@nl> Message-ID: <1Py11h-11MOgq0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: "Hans van Staveren" > A player changes his call, not according to 25A. The next player > accepts it, knowing the consequences. Now this is a 25B1 case, and in > 25B3 it is said that the information from his first call is subject to > 16D. It does not say law 26 applies. > > I can live with that, but is it agreed that in this case 26 does not > apply? No, it is not agreed - at least I do not agree ... ;-) Law 26 always applies - it does not need a cross-reference - unless explicitly disabled (e. g. Law 36 A). See also Minute of the WBF LC, Paris, October 30th, 2001: "The committee discussed the cross-references in the laws to Law 26, and in particular those in Laws 30, 31, and 32. The committee agreed that whilst the cross-references to Law 26 are not necessarily exhaustive in the laws the committee had not found a case where it would apply to a ruling under Law 30, 31 or 32, and the cross-reference is absent." From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 11 13:54:53 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:54:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rectification for 25B1 In-Reply-To: <00a201cbdfe1$6ab12120$40136360$@nl> References: <00a201cbdfe1$6ab12120$40136360$@nl> Message-ID: <002201cbdfeb$846a2ad0$8d3e8070$@no> On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren A player changes his call, not according to 25A. The next player accepts it, knowing the consequences. Now this is a 25B1 case, and in 25B3 it is said that the information from his first call is subject to 16D. It does not say law 26 applies. I can live with that, but is it agreed that in this case 26 does not apply? Hans I think that in order to answer this question we must look at Law 25B as it was modified in 2008. The old law 25B1 (substitute call condoned) stated that "the auction proceeds without penalty", and only the old law 25B2 (substitute call not condoned) explicitly referred to Law 26 lead penalties (in each of its alternatives). In 2008 all references to Law 26 were deleted from Law 25B2 as was the clause "without penalty" from Law25B1. It is clear that law 26 is a general law that may apply regardless of any explicit reference from other laws. I must conclude that Law 26 applies whenever there is a Law 25B irregularity (Change of intended call) whether or not the change of call is accepted by offender's LHO. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 11 14:26:40 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:26:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rectification for 25B1 In-Reply-To: <002201cbdfeb$846a2ad0$8d3e8070$@no> References: <00a201cbdfe1$6ab12120$40136360$@nl> <002201cbdfeb$846a2ad0$8d3e8070$@no> Message-ID: <4D7A2310.2090604@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/03/2011 13:54, Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren > > A player changes his call, not according to 25A. The next player accepts it, > knowing the consequences. Now this is a 25B1 case, and in 25B3 it is said > that the information from his first call is subject to 16D. It does not say > law 26 applies. > > I can live with that, but is it agreed that in this case 26 does not apply? > > Hans > > I think that in order to answer this question we must look at Law 25B as it > was modified in 2008. > > The old law 25B1 (substitute call condoned) stated that "the auction > proceeds without penalty", and only the old law 25B2 (substitute call not > condoned) explicitly referred to Law 26 lead penalties (in each of its > alternatives). > > In 2008 all references to Law 26 were deleted from Law 25B2 as was the > clause "without penalty" from Law25B1. It is clear that law 26 is a general > law that may apply regardless of any explicit reference from other laws. AG : agree, but what goes without saying goes better when said, so perhaps one mention in L26 could make this explicit ? From sater at xs4all.nl Sat Mar 12 10:36:30 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:36:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Rectification for 25B1 In-Reply-To: <4D7A2310.2090604@ulb.ac.be> References: <00a201cbdfe1$6ab12120$40136360$@nl> <002201cbdfeb$846a2ad0$8d3e8070$@no> <4D7A2310.2090604@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00dd01cbe098$f7f7bcd0$e7e73670$@nl> In general it seems people think law 26 should apply. I actually think so to, however in 25B3 reference is made to 16D only. Now 16D is also one of these laws that always apply, so I think it is confusing if you reference one law that always applies and not the other. One to fix in 2018 I guess. Hans From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 13 03:46:27 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 02:46:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <640343194.5866.1299741449767.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <19D5EF7E7BA64019B06B728E1CC9A566@Thain> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott: > > >>+=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested > >>that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider > >>a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. > >>A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing > >>the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did > >>consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto > >>to be a peer of Z as a player. > > [snip] > > Thomas Dehn: > > >In my book, a peer of a player is somebody who has a similar > >playing strength, and who uses a similar overall approach to > >bidding. > > > >For example, I am not a peer of Eric because I am not nearly > >as conservative a bidder as Eric. For example, I will open > >many hands which Eric will pass, and that then will impact > >subsequent bidding. > > > >The point of consulting peers is to identify logical > >alternatives. That won't work well if you consult people who > >have a totally different style for bidding. > > Richard Hills: > > In the Hills-Jesner partnership Richard Hills is a very > conservative bidder, as dealer always passing with a balanced > 11 hcp. > > In the Ali-Hills partnership Richard Hills is a very > aggressive bidder, as dealer always bidding 1NT with a > balanced 11 hcp. Let me guess: the Ali-Hills partnership place a 1NT range that includes 11 HCP, whereas the Hills-Jesner partnership does not. No, that is just a difference in partnership agreements. It is not what I meant with "conservative bidding". > So according to Thomas Dehn a Director should never poll > Richard Hills on logical alternatives, since Richard Hills is > not a peer of Richard Hills, let alone a peer of anyone else. Nah. +=+ Dictionary. 'Peer': "a person of the same age, status or ability as that of another person." There is nothing here about being equipped with an identical mode of thought. +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Mar 13 19:26:36 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:26:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] suction Message-ID: <4D7D0C5C.7000204@aol.com> Does anyone out there know why the convention "suction" is so named? Any logical explanation for the name? An acronym? Ciao, JE From gampas at aol.com Mon Mar 14 13:26:24 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:26:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suction In-Reply-To: <4D7D0C5C.7000204@aol.com> References: <4D7D0C5C.7000204@aol.com> Message-ID: <8CDB05A2B00D9D9-1508-591D5@webmail-d136.sysops.aol.com> Because it sucks? -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Easterson To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:26 Subject: [BLML] suction Does anyone out there know why the convention "suction" is so named? Any logical explanation for the name? An acronym? Ciao, JE _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 14 22:22:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:22:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Piglet / Suction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CDB05A2B00D9D9-1508-591D5@webmail-d136.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >>Does anyone out there know why the convention "suction" is so named? >>Any logical explanation for the name? An acronym? >> >>Ciao, JE Paul Lamford: >Because it sucks? Richard Hills: What is known as the Suction convention in most of the world is known as the Toxic convention in Canberra. This is because the convention was independently reinvented here. A quarter century ago a Tasmanian refugee (moi) infected Canberra bridge players with the Brown Sticker Myxomatosis Two Bids, which follow the same principle as Suction, e.g. a 2D opening bid shows a weak two in hearts or a weak 5/5 in spades and clubs plus two strong options. The Canberra player Chris Quail adapted Myxo Twos to be a defence to 1NT, and logically noted that the myxomatosis virus was Toxic to rabbits. (The Tasmanian originator of Myxo Twos, Bob Sebesfi, had an identical reason for so naming his convention. Last century the Australian rabbit plague was temporarily tamed by the CSIRO(1) manufacturing and distributing the myxomatosis virus.) Bob Sebesfi was also the co-inventor of the SW1NE convention. This is an acronym for Sebesfi Woods 1 No Trump Escape. However, this convention only applies if a 1NT opening bid is doubled by LHO. So I popularised an extension which applies after 1NT - Pass - Pass - X which I logically named Piglet, because it is the son of SW1NE. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) The official name for Australia is the Commonwealth of Australia. This caused some controversy at federation, with conservative politicians noting that the traitor(2) Oliver Cromwell's republic was also known as a commonwealth. Therefore CSIRO is an acronym for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (2) John Harington (1561-1612): Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 14 22:45:08 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:45:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Rectification for 25B1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00dd01cbe098$f7f7bcd0$e7e73670$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >In general it seems people think law 26 should apply. I actually think so >to, however in 25B3 reference is made to 16D only. Now 16D is also one of >these laws that always apply, so I think it is confusing if you reference >one law that always applies and not the other. > >One to fix in 2018 I guess. Law 25B3: "Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled." Law 26 prologue: "When an offending player's call is withdrawn ..... " Richard Hills: Initially one might think that Law 26 applies only to withdrawn calls, not to cancelled calls. However -> Definitions: "Withdrawn ? actions said to be 'withdrawn' include actions that are 'cancelled' and cards that are 'retracted'." Richard Hills: But given that Law 26 overlaps Law 16D, the 2018 Drafting Committee may wish to revisit the previous Drafting Committee's tentative decision (later reversed) to abolish Law 26. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 15 22:33:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:33:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] EBL Appeals Booklets - 2010 appeals 1 & 6 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D779903.70701@skynet.be> Message-ID: >Of Sanremo (2009) and Oostende (2010) have been published on the >EBL website. >Follow departments - appeals >-- >Herman De Wael >Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium http://www.eurobridge.org/index2.html EBL 2010 appeal 1, the Players: "North/South, through their captain, expressed their view that a partnership should not gain from its own error of system. North agreed that she had received a correct explanation." [snip] EBL 2010 appeal 6, the Committee: [snip] "The Committee then pointed to one of the reasons for South's problem. If North's 1D opening does not show any diamonds, this creates a problem for South. South should not expect his opponents to solve this problem for him. East/West cannot be blamed for not having a complete system, and West has done his best in explaining this to South." Richard Hills: In both of these appeals the appellants held the common but mistaken belief that their opponents are required to play perfect bridge, and that they are entitled to redress when an error (in appeal 1 a misbid by an opponent; in appeal 6 incomplete bidding methods of the opponents) by the opponents causes damage. Rather, both of these appeals are classic cases of Rub Of The Green. The two Appeals Committees erred only in failing to rule that the appeals were without merit. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 15 23:49:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:49:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [TD Bob Frick tells the putative declarer the 5 options after an OLOOT, then this scenario occurs] Putative dummy: "So one of his choices is to put down his hand as dummy and I play the hand?" TD Bob Frick: "Not any more." =+= TD Bob Frick's Law 54A, first sentence: "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may not spread his hand and become dummy if Bob Frick says so; Bob Frick will so say if the putative dummy violates procedure by giving Law 73B1 gratuitous advice to the putative declarer." The actual 2007 Law 54A, first sentence: "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer =+=may=+= spread his hand; he becomes dummy." Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "May, v. aux. permission (you may go)" Richard Hills: Firstly, in Bob Frick's scenario, it is possible that - although the putative dummy's extraneous remark is an irregularity, subject to Law 90 procedural penalty - the putative declarer did not gain any unauthorised information whatsoever. The putative declarer may indeed already know that the putative dummy is a Hideous Hog, wishing to be declarer at every opportunity. In this sub-scenario declarer's choice amongst the OLOOT five options is unrestricted by Law 73C. Secondly, in Bob Frick's scenario, it is possible that - although the putative dummy's extraneous remark is a demonstrable suggestion giving information that the putative declarer did not already know - the only logical alternative for the putative declarer is to become the actual dummy. For example, at matchpoint pairs East holds: 7 K983 A42 Q7643 and the bidding proceeds -> WEST EAST 1C (1) 1H (2) 1S (3) 2C (4) 2D (3) 2H (5) 2S (3) 2NT(6) 3C (3) 3D (7) 3H (3) 3NT(8) Pass (1) 15+ hcp, 3+ controls, any shape (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls, 4+ hearts, unbalanced shape (3) relay, asking for further description of East's hand (4) 4+ clubs (5) exactly 4 hearts and 5+ clubs (6) singleton or void in spades (7) 1=4=3=5 (8) exactly 3 controls (A=2, K=1) North leads the ten of spades out of turn and West carelessly gives UI about desiring to be declarer. Due to East's lack of tenaces there is not any logical alternative to East becoming dummy because an unearned overtrick may be gained if the undescribed West hand is concealed due to West becoming the new declarer. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at arcor.de Wed Mar 16 07:13:33 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:13:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <19D5EF7E7BA64019B06B728E1CC9A566@Thain> References: <19D5EF7E7BA64019B06B728E1CC9A566@Thain> Message-ID: <530456916.365228.1300256013205.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Grattan Endicott wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Dehn > Sent: 10 March 2011 07:17 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Grattan Endicott: > > > > >>+=+ At one point in this lengthy thread someone suggested > > >>that Y could not be a peer of Z if he would not consider > > >>a call that Z did consider. This, of course, is not right. > > >>A player's peer is his equal as a player and if, playing > > >>the same system, Y would not consider an action that Z did > > >>consider (and perhaps chose) he does not cease ipso facto > > >>to be a peer of Z as a player. > > > > [snip] > > > > Thomas Dehn: > > > > >In my book, a peer of a player is somebody who has a similar > > >playing strength, and who uses a similar overall approach to > > >bidding. > > > > > >For example, I am not a peer of Eric because I am not nearly > > >as conservative a bidder as Eric. For example, I will open > > >many hands which Eric will pass, and that then will impact > > >subsequent bidding. > > > > > >The point of consulting peers is to identify logical > > >alternatives. That won't work well if you consult people who > > >have a totally different style for bidding. > > > > Richard Hills: > > > > In the Hills-Jesner partnership Richard Hills is a very > > conservative bidder, as dealer always passing with a balanced > > 11 hcp. > > > > In the Ali-Hills partnership Richard Hills is a very > > aggressive bidder, as dealer always bidding 1NT with a > > balanced 11 hcp. > > Let me guess: the Ali-Hills partnership place a 1NT range > that includes 11 HCP, whereas the Hills-Jesner partnership does not. > > No, that is just a difference in partnership agreements. > It is not what I meant with "conservative bidding". > > > So according to Thomas Dehn a Director should never poll > > Richard Hills on logical alternatives, since Richard Hills is > > not a peer of Richard Hills, let alone a peer of anyone else. > > Nah. > > +=+ Dictionary. 'Peer': "a person of the same age, status or ability as > that of another person." There is nothing here > about being equipped with an identical mode of thought. +=+ Yes, but dictionary definitions are not always helpful when interpreting TFLB. San Diego 1994, Appeal #27 Vul: none North East South West 1H 1S(1) X(2) 2S 3C p p ??? (1) per partnership agreement, extremely aggressive overcalls, on as little as 6 HCP with a four card suit headed by the J. (2) negative West holds: AT54 K932 QJ94 Q W is an inexperienced player from Great Britain. What are W's logical alternatives? Thomas From blml at arcor.de Wed Mar 16 07:18:32 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:18:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] EBL Appeals Booklets In-Reply-To: <4D779903.70701@skynet.be> References: <4D779903.70701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <626747211.365399.1300256312499.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Of Sanremo (2009) and Oostende (2010) have been published on the EBL > website. > Follow departments - appeals Excellent write-ups on those appeals, Herman. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 16 09:07:51 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:07:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] EBL Appeals Booklets In-Reply-To: <626747211.365399.1300256312499.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <4D779903.70701@skynet.be> <626747211.365399.1300256312499.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D806FD7.9020002@skynet.be> homas Dehn wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Of Sanremo (2009) and Oostende (2010) have been published on the EBL >> website. >> Follow departments - appeals > > Excellent write-ups on those appeals, Herman. > Thank you for the kind words, Thomas. > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3509 - Release Date: 03/15/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 16 14:00:53 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:00:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:35 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have snipped > away)? > > See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if > possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of > these Laws. > > So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected (Law > 62A). > > Regards Sven I had three immediate reactions to this. One is that Sven's conclusion is, as far as I know, well-accepted on BLML. The second is that it doesn't really follow. L44C is about playing to a trick. It makes no reference to correcting a revoke after a player has already played to the trick. From Richard Hills: > For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is > irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an > intentional revoke. We see the same thing in Richard's posting: (1) Acceptance of the principle as obvious, and (2) moving from a claim about not revoking at all to a conclusion about correcting a revoke that has happened. My third immediate reaction is that making this point was being too picky about words. I recant this. 1. L44C is clearly about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. If they lawmakers had meant to include the correction of a revoke, they should have said so. 2. In fact, the takes-precedence over everything addendum is innocuous if it refers to playing to a trick. It becomes controversial when it refers to correcting a revoke. I doubt this was meant to be controversial. For example, a player asks partner "no more spaces" in a juridiction that does not allow this question. The player is allowed (forced!) to correct the revoke and there is no rectification? 3. It doesn't even work. No one thinks that the obligation in L44C takes precedence over the laws about established revokes (L63B). It is impossible to interpret L44C as refering to unestablished revokes but not established revokes. So I conclude the following. The law should be interpreted as it is stated: As being about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. It's simple, it's easy, and nothing else works. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 16 14:03:14 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:03:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:49:53 -0400, wrote: > [TD Bob Frick tells the putative declarer the 5 options after an OLOOT, > then this scenario occurs] > > Putative dummy: "So one of his choices is to put down his hand as dummy > and I play the hand?" > > TD Bob Frick: "Not any more." > > =+= > > TD Bob Frick's Law 54A, first sentence: > > "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may not spread his > hand and become dummy if Bob Frick says so; Bob Frick will so say if > the putative dummy violates procedure by giving Law 73B1 gratuitous > advice to the putative declarer." > > The actual 2007 Law 54A, first sentence: > > "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer =+=may=+= spread his > hand; he becomes dummy." > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "May, v. aux. permission (you may go)" Ironically, this is not logical. Dummy may not speak in this situation, at least not to draw attention to one of the five choices. So there is an infraction. Dummy's communication gives UI to declarer, so the infraction potentially damages the nonoffending side. Director's are charged with the responsibility of protecting the nonoffending side from damage from an infraction. True? So I do not need to rewrite the laws to make this ruling. It is well-accepted that infractions limit the player's options. > > Firstly, in Bob Frick's scenario, it is possible that - although the > putative dummy's extraneous remark is an irregularity, subject to Law > 90 procedural penalty - the putative declarer did not gain any > unauthorised information whatsoever. Not really possible. The (putative) dummy can see his hand. If "accepting the lead and become dummy" (ATLABD) looks like a bad choice, dummy will never draw attention to it. Remember that all five choices have been explained to declarer and dummy is now choosing to draw attention to only one of them. It is very likely that dummy likes the choice of ATLABD. > The putative declarer may > indeed already know that the putative dummy is a Hideous Hog, wishing > to be declarer at every opportunity. In this sub-scenario declarer's > choice amongst the OLOOT five options is unrestricted by Law 73C. "Know" is too strong of word. Declarer can only have opinions about why dummy is suggestion ATLABD. Hence your sub-scenario is not possible. This example works poorly for you, Richard. The Hideous Hog was an incredibly skilled declarer. One of the advantages of ATLABD is allowing the more skilled player to play the hand. However, the declarer might not have thought of this advantage. But when dummy draws attention to ATLABD, declarer reconsiders this option more carefully and may only then become aware of this advantage. (Or other advantages, which you discuss below.) > > Secondly, in Bob Frick's scenario, it is possible that - although the > putative dummy's extraneous remark is a demonstrable suggestion giving > information that the putative declarer did not already know - the only > logical alternative for the putative declarer is to become the actual > dummy. "logical alternative" comes from L16B, and I believe you are trying to apply L16B to this situation. Law 16B, as written restricts itself to calls and plays. Of course, I have complained and complained that the laws are poorly written on this point and that one should often extend "calls and plays" to include all decisions a player might make (e.g., L20F1, when a player may ask for an explanation of previous calls). However, L16B1 is not an easy to case for readers to decide how the lawbook should be rewritten/interpreted. If you take the case of dummy pointing out a LOOT, I do not know how L16B could be applied -- being unaware of the LOOT is never a logical altnerative. So it is possible that the lawmakers actually thought about the choice here and decided L16B should apply only to calls and plays. > For example, at matchpoint pairs East holds: > > 7 > K983 > A42 > Q7643 > > and the bidding proceeds -> > > WEST EAST > 1C (1) 1H (2) > 1S (3) 2C (4) > 2D (3) 2H (5) > 2S (3) 2NT(6) > 3C (3) 3D (7) > 3H (3) 3NT(8) > Pass > > (1) 15+ hcp, 3+ controls, any shape > (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls, 4+ hearts, unbalanced shape > (3) relay, asking for further description of East's hand > (4) 4+ clubs > (5) exactly 4 hearts and 5+ clubs > (6) singleton or void in spades > (7) 1=4=3=5 > (8) exactly 3 controls (A=2, K=1) > > North leads the ten of spades out of turn and West carelessly gives UI > about desiring to be declarer. Due to East's lack of tenaces there is > not any logical alternative to East becoming dummy because an unearned > overtrick may be gained if the undescribed West hand is concealed due > to West becoming the new declarer. It is very unlikely that ATLABD will ever be the only logical alternative. We are talking about the peers of players who will, as dummy, draw attention to just one of declarer's choices. Those people never consider everything. So it is unlikely to me, and an empirical question, whether most of these declarers will consider the issue of tenaces. They are very unlikely to consider the issue of which hand the opponents know the most about. (And they are not playing the Ali-Hills relay system). ATLABD is rarely the choice declarer's make. I think that is because they are looking forward to playing the hand. Ironically, your example does not work well for you. This is a very complex auction. The idea that I am going to ask three players, while they are playing a round of bridge, to consider this entire auction, and then their hand, and then ask them what choice they will make, strikes me as impractical for a club game. Am I missing something? There are players who play quickly and can analyze things quickly, but they won't be peers in most circumstances. Given the time and effort involved, I can't even feel right about testing this on anyone before the game today. (I can try to analyze this myself, but one of the key questions is whether most declarers will consider the issue of tenaces. I can't test that on myself. And you have fallen for that exact trap -- assuming that everyone else will consider tenaces just because you did.) From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 14:09:40 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:09:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> Message-ID: Just take another look at Law 62A which is the specific law (related to revokes) that corresponds to the general and all-important Law 44C. (And please don't try any futile argument like correcting a revoke under Law 62A is not "playing to a trick") ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:00 PM Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke > On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:35 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have snipped >> away)? >> >> See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if >> possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of >> these Laws. >> >> So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected (Law >> 62A). >> >> Regards Sven > > I had three immediate reactions to this. One is that Sven's conclusion is, > as far as I know, well-accepted on BLML. > > The second is that it doesn't really follow. L44C is about playing to a > trick. It makes no reference to correcting a revoke after a player has > already played to the trick. > > From Richard Hills: >> For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is >> irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an >> intentional revoke. > > We see the same thing in Richard's posting: (1) Acceptance of the > principle as obvious, and (2) moving from a claim about not revoking at > all to a conclusion about correcting a revoke that has happened. > > > My third immediate reaction is that making this point was being too picky > about words. I recant this. > > > 1. L44C is clearly about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. If > they lawmakers had meant to include the correction of a revoke, they > should have said so. > > 2. In fact, the takes-precedence over everything addendum is innocuous if > it refers to playing to a trick. It becomes controversial when it refers > to correcting a revoke. I doubt this was meant to be controversial. For > example, a player asks partner "no more spaces" in a juridiction that does > not allow this question. The player is allowed (forced!) to correct the > revoke and there is no rectification? > > 3. It doesn't even work. No one thinks that the obligation in L44C takes > precedence over the laws about established revokes (L63B). It is > impossible to interpret L44C as refering to unestablished revokes but not > established revokes. > > So I conclude the following. The law should be interpreted as it is > stated: As being about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. It's > simple, it's easy, and nothing else works. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 16 14:37:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:37:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:09:40 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > Just take another look at Law 62A which is the specific law (related to > revokes) that corresponds to the general and all-important Law 44C. (And > please don't try any futile argument like correcting a revoke under Law > 62A > is not "playing to a trick") Hi Sven. Both you and Richard said that L44C applied to this situation. I was disagreeing with that. I take it my argument was not futile, because you don't seem to be defending that point. Instead, you are making a new point. I can respond to your new point, but that isn't relevant to my argument about L44C. L62A clearly says the player must correct the revoke. But there is no clause adding that it takes precedence over every other law. Suppose I ask "no spades, partner?" in a jurisdiction that does not allow this question. I think a director might consider rectification for the nonoffending side. And a reasonable rectification is not allowing correction of the revoke. True? You might prefer that play continue and adjust by considering what would have happened had the revoke occurred? (In most cases that lets the director play the rest of the hand instead of the players. But I suppose it follows TFLB better.) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:00 PM > Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke > > >> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:35 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>> Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have >>> snipped >>> away)? >>> >>> See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if >>> possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements >>> of >>> these Laws. >>> >>> So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected >>> (Law >>> 62A). >>> >>> Regards Sven >> >> I had three immediate reactions to this. One is that Sven's conclusion >> is, >> as far as I know, well-accepted on BLML. >> >> The second is that it doesn't really follow. L44C is about playing to a >> trick. It makes no reference to correcting a revoke after a player has >> already played to the trick. >> >> From Richard Hills: >>> For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is >>> irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an >>> intentional revoke. >> >> We see the same thing in Richard's posting: (1) Acceptance of the >> principle as obvious, and (2) moving from a claim about not revoking at >> all to a conclusion about correcting a revoke that has happened. >> >> >> My third immediate reaction is that making this point was being too >> picky >> about words. I recant this. >> >> >> 1. L44C is clearly about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. If >> they lawmakers had meant to include the correction of a revoke, they >> should have said so. >> >> 2. In fact, the takes-precedence over everything addendum is innocuous >> if >> it refers to playing to a trick. It becomes controversial when it refers >> to correcting a revoke. I doubt this was meant to be controversial. For >> example, a player asks partner "no more spaces" in a juridiction that >> does >> not allow this question. The player is allowed (forced!) to correct the >> revoke and there is no rectification? >> >> 3. It doesn't even work. No one thinks that the obligation in L44C takes >> precedence over the laws about established revokes (L63B). It is >> impossible to interpret L44C as refering to unestablished revokes but >> not >> established revokes. >> >> So I conclude the following. The law should be interpreted as it is >> stated: As being about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. It's >> simple, it's easy, and nothing else works. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 15:32:34 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:32:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> Message-ID: 2011/3/16 Robert Frick : > On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:35 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have snipped >> away)? >> >> See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if >> possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of >> these Laws. >> >> So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected (Law >> 62A). >> >> Regards Sven > > I had three immediate reactions to this. One is that Sven's conclusion is, > as far as I know, well-accepted on BLML. > > The second is that it doesn't really follow. L44C is about playing to a > trick. It makes no reference to correcting a revoke after a player has > already played to the trick. > > ?From Richard Hills: >> For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is >> irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an >> intentional revoke. > > We see the same thing in Richard's posting: (1) Acceptance of the > principle as obvious, and (2) moving from a claim about not revoking at > all to a conclusion about correcting a revoke that has happened. > > > My third immediate reaction is that making this point was being too picky > about words. I recant this. > > > 1. L44C is clearly about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. If > they lawmakers had meant to include the correction of a revoke, they > should have said so. > > 2. In fact, the takes-precedence over everything addendum is innocuous if > it refers to playing to a trick. It becomes controversial when it refers > to correcting a revoke. I doubt this was meant to be controversial. For > example, a player asks partner "no more spaces" in a juridiction that does > not allow this question. The player is allowed (forced!) to correct the > revoke and there is no rectification? Not at all. The L61B3 says clearly that such a question might create UI. It's up to the TD to handle that part of the siutation. But the players must of course correct the revoke, read L62A and L62B. Most of the time, the penaltycard in itself will provide more than sufficient rectification. And if not, there's still the possibility of an adjusted score. This is far better than the draconian rules on this in the latter versions of the laws, when such questions was forbidden (in most of the world). > > 3. It doesn't even work. No one thinks that the obligation in L44C takes > precedence over the laws about established revokes (L63B). It is > impossible to interpret L44C as refering to unestablished revokes but not > established revokes. > > So I conclude the following. The law should be interpreted as it is > stated: As being about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. It's > simple, it's easy, and nothing else works. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 16 18:39:43 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:39:43 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Piglet / Suction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:32:34 -0400, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2011/3/16 Robert Frick : >> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:35 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>> Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have >>> snipped >>> away)? >>> >>> See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if >>> possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements >>> of >>> these Laws. >>> >>> So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected >>> (Law >>> 62A). >>> >>> Regards Sven >> >> I had three immediate reactions to this. One is that Sven's conclusion >> is, >> as far as I know, well-accepted on BLML. >> >> The second is that it doesn't really follow. L44C is about playing to a >> trick. It makes no reference to correcting a revoke after a player has >> already played to the trick. >> >> From Richard Hills: >>> For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is >>> irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an >>> intentional revoke. >> >> We see the same thing in Richard's posting: (1) Acceptance of the >> principle as obvious, and (2) moving from a claim about not revoking at >> all to a conclusion about correcting a revoke that has happened. >> >> >> My third immediate reaction is that making this point was being too >> picky >> about words. I recant this. >> >> >> 1. L44C is clearly about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. If >> they lawmakers had meant to include the correction of a revoke, they >> should have said so. >> >> 2. In fact, the takes-precedence over everything addendum is innocuous >> if >> it refers to playing to a trick. It becomes controversial when it refers >> to correcting a revoke. I doubt this was meant to be controversial. For >> example, a player asks partner "no more spaces" in a juridiction that >> does >> not allow this question. The player is allowed (forced!) to correct the >> revoke and there is no rectification? > > Not at all. The L61B3 says clearly that such a question might create > UI. It's up to the TD to handle that part of the siutation. > But the players must of course correct the revoke, read L62A and L62B. > Most of the time, the penaltycard in itself will provide more than > sufficient rectification. And if not, there's still the possibility of > an adjusted score. > This is far better than the draconian rules on this in the latter > versions of the laws, when such questions was forbidden (in most of > the world). Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? > >> >> 3. It doesn't even work. No one thinks that the obligation in L44C takes >> precedence over the laws about established revokes (L63B). It is >> impossible to interpret L44C as refering to unestablished revokes but >> not >> established revokes. >> >> So I conclude the following. The law should be interpreted as it is >> stated: As being about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. It's >> simple, it's easy, and nothing else works. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- somepsychology.com From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 19:19:03 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:19:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> Message-ID: <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick wrote: > 2011/3/16 Robert Frick : >> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:35 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>> Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have >>> snipped >>> away)? >>> >>> See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if >>> possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements >>> of >>> these Laws. >>> >>> So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected >>> (Law >>> 62A). >>> >>> Regards Sven >> >> I had three immediate reactions to this. One is that Sven's conclusion >> is, >> as far as I know, well-accepted on BLML. >> >> The second is that it doesn't really follow. L44C is about playing to a >> trick. It makes no reference to correcting a revoke after a player has >> already played to the trick. >> >> From Richard Hills: >>> For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is >>> irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an >>> intentional revoke. >> >> We see the same thing in Richard's posting: (1) Acceptance of the >> principle as obvious, and (2) moving from a claim about not revoking at >> all to a conclusion about correcting a revoke that has happened. >> >> >> My third immediate reaction is that making this point was being too >> picky >> about words. I recant this. >> >> >> 1. L44C is clearly about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. If >> they lawmakers had meant to include the correction of a revoke, they >> should have said so. >> >> 2. In fact, the takes-precedence over everything addendum is innocuous >> if >> it refers to playing to a trick. It becomes controversial when it refers >> to correcting a revoke. I doubt this was meant to be controversial. For >> example, a player asks partner "no more spaces" in a juridiction that >> does >> not allow this question. The player is allowed (forced!) to correct the >> revoke and there is no rectification? > > Not at all. The L61B3 says clearly that such a question might create > UI. It's up to the TD to handle that part of the siutation. > But the players must of course correct the revoke, read L62A and L62B. > Most of the time, the penaltycard in itself will provide more than > sufficient rectification. And if not, there's still the possibility of > an adjusted score. > This is far better than the draconian rules on this in the latter > versions of the laws, when such questions was forbidden (in most of > the world). Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? That is a question that must be considered by a regulating authority that decides to still forbid such questions. > >> >> 3. It doesn't even work. No one thinks that the obligation in L44C takes >> precedence over the laws about established revokes (L63B). It is >> impossible to interpret L44C as refering to unestablished revokes but >> not >> established revokes. Why? After an established revoke there can be no (changed) play to the trick in question so Law 44C has irrevocably been violated. When the offender becomes aware of his revoke before it is established that revoke must be corrected, resulting in a new card being played to the trick. >> So I conclude the following. The law should be interpreted as it is >> stated: As being about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. It's >> simple, it's easy, and nothing else works. Said (I believe) Robert, but without tenable reasoning. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 16 19:56:37 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:56:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:19:03 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > wrote: > >> 2011/3/16 Robert Frick : >>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:35 -0500, Sven Pran >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Why all the discussion around Law 16 below (most of which I have >>>> snipped >>>> away)? >>>> >>>> See Law 44C: In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if >>>> possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements >>>> of >>>> these Laws. >>>> >>>> So long as the revoke has not been established it must be corrected >>>> (Law >>>> 62A). >>>> >>>> Regards Sven >>> >>> I had three immediate reactions to this. One is that Sven's conclusion >>> is, >>> as far as I know, well-accepted on BLML. >>> >>> The second is that it doesn't really follow. L44C is about playing to a >>> trick. It makes no reference to correcting a revoke after a player has >>> already played to the trick. >>> >>> From Richard Hills: >>>> For example, the expert Director Sven Pran correctly observes UI is >>>> irrelevant(1) to establishing a revoke, since Law 44C prohibits an >>>> intentional revoke. >>> >>> We see the same thing in Richard's posting: (1) Acceptance of the >>> principle as obvious, and (2) moving from a claim about not revoking at >>> all to a conclusion about correcting a revoke that has happened. >>> >>> >>> My third immediate reaction is that making this point was being too >>> picky >>> about words. I recant this. >>> >>> >>> 1. L44C is clearly about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. >>> If >>> they lawmakers had meant to include the correction of a revoke, they >>> should have said so. >>> >>> 2. In fact, the takes-precedence over everything addendum is innocuous >>> if >>> it refers to playing to a trick. It becomes controversial when it >>> refers >>> to correcting a revoke. I doubt this was meant to be controversial. For >>> example, a player asks partner "no more spaces" in a juridiction that >>> does >>> not allow this question. The player is allowed (forced!) to correct the >>> revoke and there is no rectification? >> >> Not at all. The L61B3 says clearly that such a question might create >> UI. It's up to the TD to handle that part of the siutation. >> But the players must of course correct the revoke, read L62A and L62B. >> Most of the time, the penaltycard in itself will provide more than >> sufficient rectification. And if not, there's still the possibility of >> an adjusted score. >> This is far better than the draconian rules on this in the latter >> versions of the laws, when such questions was forbidden (in most of >> the world). > > > Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that > question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? > > That is a question that must be considered by a regulating authority that > decides to still forbid such questions. > >> >>> >>> 3. It doesn't even work. No one thinks that the obligation in L44C >>> takes >>> precedence over the laws about established revokes (L63B). It is >>> impossible to interpret L44C as refering to unestablished revokes but >>> not >>> established revokes. > > Why? After an established revoke there can be no (changed) play to the > trick > in question The question is, why can't there be a change to an established revoke? You assert that there can't. But why? Law 63B says there cannot be a change. But surely it does not priority over Law 44C. The only other possibility is that L44C was not intended to apply to established revokes. And if you accept that, then what the heck does L44C mean? I think the only reasonably choice is to interpret it as meaning what it says, that it applies to the play of a trick, not to the correction of a revoke. so Law 44C has irrevocably been violated. When the offender > becomes aware of his revoke before it is established that revoke must be > corrected, resulting in a new card being played to the trick. > >>> So I conclude the following. The law should be interpreted as it is >>> stated: As being about playing to a trick, not correcting a revoke. >>> It's >>> simple, it's easy, and nothing else works. > > Said (I believe) Robert, but without tenable reasoning. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 16 22:00:25 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:00:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] unauthorised info? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 81B2: "The Director ..... is bound by, these Laws ..... " >..... >It is well-accepted that infractions limit the player's options. >..... >Am I missing something? >..... Yes. A Director must not create a new Law according to what that Director thinks is "well-accepted". A Director must rule according to what the relevant Law actually says. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 16 23:14:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:14:05 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >From the Dodgers official website: "The term 'Trolley Dodgers' was attached to the Brooklyn ballclub due to the complex maze of trolley cars that weaved its way through the borough of Brooklyn. The name was then shortened to just 'Dodgers'. During the 1890s, other popular nicknames were Ward's Wonders, Foutz's Fillies and Hanlon's Superbas." Law 61B3 - Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke "Defenders may ask declarer and, =+=unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority=+=, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information)."(2) Robert Frick: >>Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that >>question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? Sven Pran: >That is a question that must be considered by a regulating authority >that decides to still forbid such questions. Richard Hills: Sven is dodging Bob's question. If: (a) the Regulating Authority has prohibited a defensive enquiry, but (b) a defensive enquiry happens anyway, and (c) the Regulating Authority forgot to create guidelines, then (d) how should a Director rule? My two cents worth is that at the end of the deal the Director should adjust the score pursuant to Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority(1) a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Best wishes Richard Hills (1) My further shilling's worth is that for those vast majority of RAs who accept the default option in Law 61B3, thereby legalising defensive questions, they therefore have implicitly permitted their defenders Law 61B3 aid to memory regarding a non-established revoke, thus there is not any inconsistency between Law 40C3(a) and Law 61B3. (2) Trick question. If an RA has prohibited a defensive enquiry, then declarer and a defender show out on the same trick, is the other defender permitted to ask declarer "Heartless?", thus indirectly aiding partner's memory if it was partner (not declarer) who had committed the unestablished revoke in the heart suit? (3) Trick answer. Calling declarer heartless infracts Law 74A2. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 16 23:20:43 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:20:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> Message-ID: <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .................... > The question is, why can't there be a change to an established revoke? > You assert that there can't. But why? > > Law 63B says there cannot be a change. But surely it does not priority > over Law 44C. Law 63B indeed says there cannot be a change once a revoke has been established, and Law 63B certainly does not have priority over Law 44C. On the contrary Law 44C indeed has priority over all other laws. But Law 44C concerns the play of a card, not "completed" plays of cards. Once a revoke is established the (illegally) played card can no longer be retracted so there will not be a new play to that trick. Consequently there is no question of Law 44C any more this law is not retroactive. > > The only other possibility is that L44C was not intended to apply to > established revokes. > > And if you accept that, then what the heck does L44C mean? I think the > only reasonably choice is to interpret it as meaning what it says, that > it applies to the play of a trick, not to the correction of a revoke. But the correction of an unestablished revoke implies the withdrawal of an illegally played card and the play of another card. Law 44C certainly applies to THIS play! From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 17 04:30:45 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:30:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:20:43 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > .................... >> The question is, why can't there be a change to an established revoke? >> You assert that there can't. But why? >> >> Law 63B says there cannot be a change. But surely it does not priority >> over Law 44C. > > Law 63B indeed says there cannot be a change once a revoke has been > established, and Law 63B certainly does not have priority over Law 44C. > On > the contrary Law 44C indeed has priority over all other laws. > > But Law 44C concerns the play of a card, not "completed" plays of cards. > > Once a revoke is established the (illegally) played card can no longer be > retracted You are still doing the same thing. A spade is led. Declarer ruffs and leads a spade, establishing the revoke. There is no physical difficulty correcting the revoke. There is no practical difficulty. There aren't even any defender's plays to worry about withdrawing. It is simple? So why do you keep saying that the illegally played card cannot be retracted? Well, L63B says it can't. But if you interpret L44C as requiring the correction of revokes, then the revoke has to be corrected, because L44C has priority over L63B (as we agree). Which is why I am arguing that L44C does not apply to the correction of revokes. so there will not be a new play to that trick. Consequently > there > is no question of Law 44C any more this law is not retroactive. > >> >> The only other possibility is that L44C was not intended to apply to >> established revokes. >> >> And if you accept that, then what the heck does L44C mean? I think the >> only reasonably choice is to interpret it as meaning what it says, that >> it applies to the play of a trick, not to the correction of a revoke. > > But the correction of an unestablished revoke implies the withdrawal of > an > illegally played card and the play of another card. > > Law 44C certainly applies to THIS play! > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 06:33:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:33:29 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Off-topic relay theory [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>For example, at matchpoint pairs East holds: >> >> 7 >> K983 >> A42 >> Q7643 >> >>and the bidding proceeds -> >> >> WEST EAST >> 1C (1) 1H (2) >> 1S (3) 2C (4) >> 2D (3) 2H (5) >> 2S (3) 2NT(6) >> 3C (3) 3D (7) >> 3H (3) 3NT(8) >> Pass >> >> (1) 15+ hcp, 3+ controls, any shape >> (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls, 4+ hearts, unbalanced shape >> (3) relay, asking for further description of East's hand >> (4) 4+ clubs >> (5) exactly 4 hearts and 5+ clubs >> (6) singleton or void in spades >> (7) 1=4=3=5 >> (8) exactly 3 controls (A=2, K=1) >> >>North leads the spade ten(1) out of turn and West carelessly gives UI >>about desiring to be declarer. Due to East's lack of tenaces there is >>not any logical alternative to East becoming dummy because an unearned >>overtrick may be gained if the undescribed West hand is concealed due >>to West becoming the new declarer. Robert Frick: >It is very unlikely that accepting the OLOOT and becoming dummy will >ever be the only logical alternative. Richard Hills: The logical fallacy of confusing a priori with a posteriori. A priori very few people play Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request). Thomas Dehn: >[East] is an inexperienced player from Great Britain. > >What are [East]'s logical alternatives? Richard Hills: A posteriori all relay players, inexperienced from Great Britain or experienced from Australia, are well aware of the great usefulness to conceal the undescribed hand as declarer. Indeed, in my super-scientific youth my super-scientific partner and I scrambled the positive responses to our Strong Club opening to enhance the chance that the 1C opener would declare the final contract. E.g. WEST EAST 1C (1) 1S (2) 1NT(3) 2C (4) 2D (5) (1) 15+ hcp, 3+ controls, any shape (2) 8+ hcp, 2+ controls, EITHER balanced OR both red suits (3) relay, potential declarership in NT if East is balanced (4) both red suits (any higher bid would show some 4333 or 4432) (5) relay, potential declarership in East's diamond suit The disadvantage of such a 1S scrambled response was when West's long and strong suit was spades, and East therefore declared a wrongsided 6S, one off after a lead through West's Kx of clubs. So although the scrambled responses had a slight theoretical edge, the associated memory strain (especially when the opponents mildly competed, altering but not breaking the relays) meant that scrambled responses had huge debacles at the table. Indeed, all my modifications to my version of the Symmetric Relay system (originated by New Zealander Professor Roy Kerr) that I have made this century have been directed towards making our methods simpler and more symmetrical. Best wishes Richard Hills Retired Super-Scientist (1) It is almost certainly an error to lead the described hand's singleton when there has been a relay auction to 3NT, as the relayer usually has many stoppers and/or a five card suit opposite. More likely to defeat 3NT is an opening lead in the described hand's three card holding; in the example hand a diamond lead will often be worth many matchpoints. Hence East remaining declarer and then prohibiting a spade opening lead by South may well be a debacle. "If North does not know whose lead it is, North does not know the killing suit to lead." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu Mar 17 09:49:34 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:49:34 +0000 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> Message-ID: <2B05C7E1-B412-4FEB-8250-ADDE56B2155A@btinternet.com> Robert Frick wrote: > Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that > question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? On 16 Mar 2011, at 18:19, Sven Pran wrote: > > That is a question that must be considered by a regulating > authority that > decides to still forbid such questions. As far as I am aware there are no such regulating authorities. Gordon Rainsford (holding breath in anticipation of contradiction) From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 10:16:23 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:16:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> Message-ID: <000601cbe483$fe4710b0$fad53210$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .......... > > Once a revoke is established the (illegally) played card can no > longer be > > retracted > > You are still doing the same thing. A spade is led. Declarer ruffs and > leads a spade, establishing the revoke. > > There is no physical difficulty correcting the revoke. > > There is no practical difficulty. There aren't even any defender's > plays > to worry about withdrawing. There vis a LEGAL difficulty > > It is simple? So why do you keep saying that the illegally played card > cannot be retracted? I am not saying that. I am saying that the illegally card cannot be retracted once the revoke is established. Until the revoke is established the illegally played card can of course be retracted. > > Well, L63B says it can't. But if you interpret L44C as requiring the > correction of revokes, then the revoke has to be corrected, because > L44C has priority over L63B (as we agree). > > Which is why I am arguing that L44C does not apply to the correction of > revokes. You must distinguish between not yet established revokes that can (and must) be corrected and established revokes that are final (except revokes in the twelfth trick). Law 44C does of course not apply unless there is a card to be played, so it does not apply when a revoke cannot be corrected, but Law 44C most certainly applies in any situation when a correctable revoke shall be corrected. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 17 11:00:18 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:00:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D81DBB2.3030809@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/03/2011 23:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > From the Dodgers official website: > > "The term 'Trolley Dodgers' was attached to the Brooklyn ballclub due to > the complex maze of trolley cars that weaved its way through the borough > of Brooklyn. The name was then shortened to just 'Dodgers'. During the > 1890s, other popular nicknames were Ward's Wonders, Foutz's Fillies and > Hanlon's Superbas." > > Law 61B3 - Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke > > "Defenders may ask declarer and, =+=unless prohibited by the Regulating > Authority=+=, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized > information)."(2) > > Robert Frick: > >>> Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that >>> question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? > Sven Pran: > >> That is a question that must be considered by a regulating authority >> that decides to still forbid such questions. > Richard Hills: > > Sven is dodging Bob's question. If: > > (a) the Regulating Authority has prohibited a defensive enquiry, but > (b) a defensive enquiry happens anyway, and > (c) the Regulating Authority forgot to create guidelines, then > (d) how should a Director rule? > > My two cents worth is that at the end of the deal the Director should > adjust the score pursuant to Law 40C3(a): > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority(1) a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his > memory, calculation or technique." AG : I don't think that knowing you have one more plum in hand is a matter of memory, nor of calculation, and even less of technique. Now is a player entitled to aids to his concentration ? I'd say yes, as can ber seen from the number of us who drink coffee. Whence, even if there was a non-asking regulation, L40C3 doesn't seem the right way to enforce it. But perhaps we don't need it. Isn't there written somewhere that when there isn't any specific penalty, the TD has some freedom, especially to assess procedural penalties ? > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > (1) My further shilling's worth is that for those vast majority of > RAs who accept the default option in Law 61B3, thereby legalising > defensive questions, they therefore have implicitly permitted their > defenders Law 61B3 aid to memory regarding a non-established revoke, > thus there is not any inconsistency between Law 40C3(a) and Law 61B3. AG : once again, knowing you have one more card of that suit isn't a question of memory, as the question follows the event in short succession. > (2) Trick question. If an RA has prohibited a defensive enquiry, > then declarer and a defender show out on the same trick, is the other > defender permitted to ask declarer "Heartless?", thus indirectly > aiding partner's memory if it was partner (not declarer) who had > committed the unestablished revoke in the heart suit? > > (3) Trick answer. Calling declarer heartless infracts Law 74A2. AG : in Belgium, it has been judged before to be disallowed. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 11:11:22 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:11:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D81DBB2.3030809@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D81DBB2.3030809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701cbe48b$ab03c850$010b58f0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner ................. > Whence, even if there was a non-asking regulation, L40C3 doesn't seem > the right way to enforce it. > > But perhaps we don't need it. Isn't there written somewhere that when > there isn't any specific penalty, the TD has some freedom, especially > to assess procedural penalties ? Laws 12A1 and 90A From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 17 17:10:08 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:10:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <000601cbe483$fe4710b0$fad53210$@no> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> <000601cbe483$fe4710b0$fad53210$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:16:23 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > .......... >> > Once a revoke is established the (illegally) played card can no >> longer be >> > retracted >> >> You are still doing the same thing. A spade is led. Declarer ruffs and >> leads a spade, establishing the revoke. >> >> There is no physical difficulty correcting the revoke. >> >> There is no practical difficulty. There aren't even any defender's >> plays >> to worry about withdrawing. > > There vis a LEGAL difficulty > >> >> It is simple? So why do you keep saying that the illegally played card >> cannot be retracted? > > I am not saying that. I am saying that the illegally card cannot be > retracted once the revoke is established. Until the revoke is established > the illegally played card can of course be retracted. > >> >> Well, L63B says it can't. But if you interpret L44C as requiring the >> correction of revokes, then the revoke has to be corrected, because >> L44C has priority over L63B (as we agree). >> >> Which is why I am arguing that L44C does not apply to the correction of >> revokes. > > You must distinguish between not yet established revokes that can (and > must) > be corrected and established revokes that are final (except revokes in > the > twelfth trick). But what if you followed the rule book as YOU interpret it? Then you get to a different ruling Law 44C: In playing to a trick [which includes correcting a revoke], each player must follow suit if possible. THIS OBLIGATION TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. Law 63B WHICH IS NOW IRRELEVANT AND NEVER APPLIED: "Once a revoke is established, it may not longer be corrected....." If you take out the part in brackets, which isn't in the actual law, then (1) Law 44C applies only to playing to a trick, not the correction of a revoke, and (2) you have no problem and can use the book to rule the way you know you should rule. You have been quite clear in claiming that the bracketed phrase does not change the meaning of L44C as you interpret it. As noted at the start of this thread, I find poor motivation for including it -- why not just follow the law as written -- in addition to the problem we are now discussing. > > Law 44C does of course not apply unless there is a card to be played, so > it > does not apply when a revoke cannot be corrected, but Law 44C most > certainly > applies in any situation when a correctable revoke shall be corrected. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 17 17:11:57 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:11:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D81DBB2.3030809@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D81DBB2.3030809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:00:18 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 16/03/2011 23:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> > From the Dodgers official website: >> >> "The term 'Trolley Dodgers' was attached to the Brooklyn ballclub due to >> the complex maze of trolley cars that weaved its way through the borough >> of Brooklyn. The name was then shortened to just 'Dodgers'. During the >> 1890s, other popular nicknames were Ward's Wonders, Foutz's Fillies and >> Hanlon's Superbas." >> >> Law 61B3 - Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke >> >> "Defenders may ask declarer and, =+=unless prohibited by the Regulating >> Authority=+=, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized >> information)."(2) >> >> Robert Frick: >> >>>> Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that >>>> question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? >> Sven Pran: >> >>> That is a question that must be considered by a regulating authority >>> that decides to still forbid such questions. >> Richard Hills: >> >> Sven is dodging Bob's question. If: >> >> (a) the Regulating Authority has prohibited a defensive enquiry, but >> (b) a defensive enquiry happens anyway, and >> (c) the Regulating Authority forgot to create guidelines, then >> (d) how should a Director rule? >> >> My two cents worth is that at the end of the deal the Director should >> adjust the score pursuant to Law 40C3(a): >> >> "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority(1) a player is not >> entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his >> memory, calculation or technique." > AG : I don't think that knowing you have one more plum in hand is a > matter of memory, nor of calculation, and even less of technique. > Now is a player entitled to aids to his concentration ? I'd say yes, as > can ber seen from the number of us who drink coffee. > > Whence, even if there was a non-asking regulation, L40C3 doesn't seem > the right way to enforce it. > > But perhaps we don't need it. Isn't there written somewhere that when > there isn't any specific penalty, the TD has some freedom, especially to > assess procedural penalties ? Procedural penalties do not address the problem of rectification. > > >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> >> (1) My further shilling's worth is that for those vast majority of >> RAs who accept the default option in Law 61B3, thereby legalising >> defensive questions, they therefore have implicitly permitted their >> defenders Law 61B3 aid to memory regarding a non-established revoke, >> thus there is not any inconsistency between Law 40C3(a) and Law 61B3. > AG : once again, knowing you have one more card of that suit isn't a > question of memory, as the question follows the event in short > succession. > >> (2) Trick question. If an RA has prohibited a defensive enquiry, >> then declarer and a defender show out on the same trick, is the other >> defender permitted to ask declarer "Heartless?", thus indirectly >> aiding partner's memory if it was partner (not declarer) who had >> committed the unestablished revoke in the heart suit? >> >> (3) Trick answer. Calling declarer heartless infracts Law 74A2. > AG : in Belgium, it has been judged before to be disallowed. > > > > Best regards > > > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 17 18:04:49 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:04:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D81DBB2.3030809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D823F31.9090507@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/03/2011 17:11, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:00:18 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 16/03/2011 23:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>>> From the Dodgers official website: >>> "The term 'Trolley Dodgers' was attached to the Brooklyn ballclub due to >>> the complex maze of trolley cars that weaved its way through the borough >>> of Brooklyn. The name was then shortened to just 'Dodgers'. During the >>> 1890s, other popular nicknames were Ward's Wonders, Foutz's Fillies and >>> Hanlon's Superbas." >>> >>> Law 61B3 - Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke >>> >>> "Defenders may ask declarer and, =+=unless prohibited by the Regulating >>> Authority=+=, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized >>> information)."(2) >>> >>> Robert Frick: >>> >>>>> Sorry, the question is what happens in parts of the world where that >>>>> question is forbidden. What kind of adjusted score? >>> Sven Pran: >>> >>>> That is a question that must be considered by a regulating authority >>>> that decides to still forbid such questions. >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Sven is dodging Bob's question. If: >>> >>> (a) the Regulating Authority has prohibited a defensive enquiry, but >>> (b) a defensive enquiry happens anyway, and >>> (c) the Regulating Authority forgot to create guidelines, then >>> (d) how should a Director rule? >>> >>> My two cents worth is that at the end of the deal the Director should >>> adjust the score pursuant to Law 40C3(a): >>> >>> "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority(1) a player is not >>> entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his >>> memory, calculation or technique." >> AG : I don't think that knowing you have one more plum in hand is a >> matter of memory, nor of calculation, and even less of technique. >> Now is a player entitled to aids to his concentration ? I'd say yes, as >> can ber seen from the number of us who drink coffee. >> >> Whence, even if there was a non-asking regulation, L40C3 doesn't seem >> the right way to enforce it. >> >> But perhaps we don't need it. Isn't there written somewhere that when >> there isn't any specific penalty, the TD has some freedom, especially to >> assess procedural penalties ? > Procedural penalties do not address the problem of rectification. > > AG : true, but I think L12 does. In all its genericity (?), it provides the TD with the power to decide how to deal with actions that have been identified as infractions. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 17 18:31:26 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:31:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead Message-ID: \The table ruling (no director was called) was that the opening lead is irrevocably made when the card touches the table. I can't find much to support that. But there seems to be a hole in "Compulsory Play of Card" for face down opening leads. I guess I am stuck with the generalization that if looks played, it is. But I suspect players might just hold their card on the table face to everyone else for opening lead. Bob From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 19:09:26 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:09:26 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> <000601cbe483$fe4710b0$fad53210$@no> Message-ID: <001201cbe4ce$744c1450$5ce43cf0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > .......... > But what if you followed the rule book as YOU interpret it? Then you > get to a different ruling > > > Law 44C: In playing to a trick [which includes correcting a revoke], > each > player must follow suit if possible. THIS OBLIGATION TAKES PRECEDENCE > OVER > ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. > > Law 63B WHICH IS NOW IRRELEVANT AND NEVER APPLIED: "Once a revoke is > established, it may not longer be corrected....." > > > If you take out the part in brackets, which isn't in the actual law, > then > (1) Law 44C applies only to playing to a trick, not the correction of a > revoke, and (2) you have no problem and can use the book to rule the > way you know you should rule. > > You have been quite clear in claiming that the bracketed phrase does > not > change the meaning of L44C as you interpret it. As noted at the start > of > this thread, I find poor motivation for including it -- why not just > follow the law as written -- in addition to the problem we are now > discussing. To make your argument clear: Law 44C: In playing to a trick [except when correcting a revoke], each player must follow suit if possible. THIS OBLIGATION TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. Now please tell me which law requires the offender correcting revoke as prescribed in Law 62B to follow suit when playing the replacement card? From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 19:20:51 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:20:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001301cbe4d0$0c8d2be0$25a783a0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > \The table ruling (no director was called) was that the opening lead is > irrevocably made when the card touches the table. > > I can't find much to support that. But there seems to be a hole in > "Compulsory Play of Card" for face down opening leads. > > I guess I am stuck with the generalization that if looks played, it is. > But I suspect players might just hold their card on the table face to > everyone else for opening lead. A face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand. (Law 41A) In addition to the specification in Law 47E2 "irregularity" in Law 41A obviously includes also face-down opening lead by the incorrect defender. (See Law 54). From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 17 19:46:24 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:46:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <001201cbe4ce$744c1450$5ce43cf0$@no> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> <000601cbe483$fe4710b0$fad53210$@no> <001201cbe4ce$744c1450$5ce43cf0$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:09:26 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> > .......... >> But what if you followed the rule book as YOU interpret it? Then you >> get to a different ruling >> >> >> Law 44C: In playing to a trick [which includes correcting a revoke], >> each >> player must follow suit if possible. THIS OBLIGATION TAKES PRECEDENCE >> OVER >> ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. >> >> Law 63B WHICH IS NOW IRRELEVANT AND NEVER APPLIED: "Once a revoke is >> established, it may not longer be corrected....." >> >> >> If you take out the part in brackets, which isn't in the actual law, >> then >> (1) Law 44C applies only to playing to a trick, not the correction of a >> revoke, and (2) you have no problem and can use the book to rule the >> way you know you should rule. >> >> You have been quite clear in claiming that the bracketed phrase does >> not >> change the meaning of L44C as you interpret it. As noted at the start >> of >> this thread, I find poor motivation for including it -- why not just >> follow the law as written -- in addition to the problem we are now >> discussing. > > To make your argument clear: > > Law 44C: In playing to a trick [except when correcting a revoke], each > player must follow suit if possible. THIS OBLIGATION TAKES PRECEDENCE > OVER > ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. > > Now please tell me which law requires the offender correcting revoke as > prescribed in Law 62B to follow suit when playing the replacement card? The issue we disagree on is the established revoke. Your interpretation of L44C poses no problems for the correction of an unestablished revoke. Again, how can we interpret L44C so that it does not mandate the correction of an established revoke? Besides for the way I suggest. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 17 19:49:29 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:49:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead In-Reply-To: <001301cbe4d0$0c8d2be0$25a783a0$@no> References: <001301cbe4d0$0c8d2be0$25a783a0$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:20:51 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> \The table ruling (no director was called) was that the opening lead is >> irrevocably made when the card touches the table. >> >> I can't find much to support that. But there seems to be a hole in >> "Compulsory Play of Card" for face down opening leads. >> >> I guess I am stuck with the generalization that if looks played, it is. >> But I suspect players might just hold their card on the table face to >> everyone else for opening lead. > > A face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director > after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be > returned to > the defender's hand. (Law 41A) > > In addition to the specification in Law 47E2 "irregularity" in Law 41A > obviously includes also face-down opening lead by the incorrect defender. > (See Law 54). Nice background. Again, the question is what movement or position of the card or whatever defines an opening face down lead as being made. Touching the table, for example? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 17 22:18:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:18:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative. Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions. >Again, the question is what movement or position of the card or >whatever defines an opening face down lead as being made. Touching >the table, for example? Law 45A (Play of Card from a Hand) and footnote: Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it on the table immediately before him. * The opening lead is first made face down unless the Regulating Authority directs otherwise. RTFLBest wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 22:34:56 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:34:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> <000f01cbe428$64f0d280$2ed27780$@no> <000601cbe483$fe4710b0$fad53210$@no> <001201cbe4ce$744c1450$5ce43cf0$@no> Message-ID: <001801cbe4eb$29235520$7b69ff60$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > >> > .......... > >> But what if you followed the rule book as YOU interpret it? Then you > >> get to a different ruling > >> > >> > >> Law 44C: In playing to a trick [which includes correcting a revoke], > >> each > >> player must follow suit if possible. THIS OBLIGATION TAKES > PRECEDENCE > >> OVER > >> ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. > >> > >> Law 63B WHICH IS NOW IRRELEVANT AND NEVER APPLIED: "Once a revoke is > >> established, it may not longer be corrected....." > >> > >> > >> If you take out the part in brackets, which isn't in the actual law, > >> then > >> (1) Law 44C applies only to playing to a trick, not the correction > of a > >> revoke, and (2) you have no problem and can use the book to rule the > >> way you know you should rule. > >> > >> You have been quite clear in claiming that the bracketed phrase does > >> not > >> change the meaning of L44C as you interpret it. As noted at the > start > >> of > >> this thread, I find poor motivation for including it -- why not just > >> follow the law as written -- in addition to the problem we are now > >> discussing. > > > > To make your argument clear: > > > > Law 44C: In playing to a trick [except when correcting a revoke], > each > > player must follow suit if possible. THIS OBLIGATION TAKES PRECEDENCE > > OVER > > ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. > > > > Now please tell me which law requires the offender correcting revoke > as > > prescribed in Law 62B to follow suit when playing the replacement > card? > > The issue we disagree on is the established revoke. Your interpretation > of > L44C poses no problems for the correction of an unestablished revoke. > > > Again, how can we interpret L44C so that it does not mandate the > correction of an established revoke? Besides for the way I suggest. Because no play is ever allowed to a trick (other than trick twelve) in which there has been a revoke that was (subsequently) established, so Law 44C cannot apply to an established revoke. This is further emphasized in Law 63B which specifically deals with established revokes. From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 17 22:37:48 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:37:48 +0100 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <001301cbe4d0$0c8d2be0$25a783a0$@no> Message-ID: <001901cbe4eb$8fa47b80$aeed7280$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ........... > Again, the question is what movement or position of the card or > whatever > defines an opening face down lead as being made. Touching the table, > for example? Or maintaining it in a position which indicates the intention of eventually leading it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 18 00:24:49 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:24:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Actual 2007 Law 61B3: "Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of creating unauthorized information)." >As far as I am aware there are no such regulating authorities. > >Gordon Rainsford (holding breath in anticipation of contradiction) Maybe, maybe not. When the draft Laws were submitted to NBOs for feedback in December 2006, this was the draft 2006 Law 61B3: "Defenders may ask declarer or one another (but at the risk of creating unauthorized information)." One NBO wished to retain its prohibition of defenders questioning each other, which the NBO had legally enforced under 1997 Lawbook. Thus the 2006 draft had a 2007 amendment by the Drafting Committee. Of course, it is possible that between now and then that NBO has changed its collective mind (perhaps wishing to permit its players to enjoy more consistent Conditions of Contest when playing in neighbouring NBOs and/or in international competitions). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Mar 18 13:25:22 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:25:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L44C does not apply to the correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <2B05C7E1-B412-4FEB-8250-ADDE56B2155A@btinternet.com> References: <201103090250.p292oS84018920@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301cbde39$2758e330$760aa990$@no> <010401cbe406$a20cb6b0$e6262410$@no> <2B05C7E1-B412-4FEB-8250-ADDE56B2155A@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Am 17.03.2011, 09:49 Uhr, schrieb Gordon Rainsford : > On 16 Mar 2011, at 18:19, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> That is a question that must be considered by a regulating >> authority that >> decides to still forbid such questions. > > As far as I am aware there are no such regulating authorities. AFAIK, Germany. But one of our German contributors might enlighten us there. Regards, Petrus From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 18 14:03:45 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:03:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead In-Reply-To: <001901cbe4eb$8fa47b80$aeed7280$@no> References: <001301cbe4d0$0c8d2be0$25a783a0$@no> <001901cbe4eb$8fa47b80$aeed7280$@no> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:37:48 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ........... >> Again, the question is what movement or position of the card or >> whatever >> defines an opening face down lead as being made. Touching the table, >> for example? > > Or maintaining it in a position which indicates the intention of > eventually > leading it. I was thinking of this as being good. But I started worrying about it. Suppose a player puts a card on the table, the edge of the card on the table, and the card faced towards the player. If the player looks up at other people at the table with a vacant look on his face, it will look like a played card. But if the player is still intently studying the card or his hand, it will not look like a played card. Or perhaps that is a good answer. Any card touching the table in a face-down position is led. Any card still facing the opening leader is led if the opening leader indicates a lack of remaining thought, as by looking away from the card and his hand. I had a similar problem with the ACBL bidding card regulations. A player said she was still thinking about her bid and placed the edge of the bidding card on the table, with the bidding card facing her. According to the ACBL regulations, a bid is irrevocable once it touches the table. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 18 14:04:41 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:04:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:18:33 -0400, wrote: >> The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... > > Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): > > The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? > see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative. > > Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): > > The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a > rectification made by the players without his instructions. Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was really correct (even if it was correct(. Here there was no infraction. Right? And hence no rectification? So the laws you cite are irrelevant? There must be some more general law that applies, I hope. > >> Again, the question is what movement or position of the card or >> whatever defines an opening face down lead as being made. Touching >> the table, for example? > > Law 45A (Play of Card from a Hand) and footnote: > > Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand > and facing* it on the table immediately before him. > * The opening lead is first made face down unless the Regulating > Authority directs otherwise. Nice background. Thank you. It pretty much illustrates the problem -- the laws do not give any specification for when a face-down lead becomes compulsory. It is a missing section from L45C. From jkljkl at gmx.de Fri Mar 18 14:24:02 2011 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:24:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D835CF2.3050108@gmx.de> Hello, Am 18.03.2011 00:24, schrieb richard.hills at immi.gov.au: > Actual 2007 Law 61B3: > > "Defenders may ask declarer and, unless prohibited by the > Regulating Authority, may ask one another (at the risk of > creating unauthorized information)." > >> As far as I am aware there are no such regulating authorities. >> >> Gordon Rainsford (holding breath in anticipation of >> contradiction) > > Maybe, maybe not. > > When the draft Laws were submitted to NBOs for feedback in > December 2006, this was the draft 2006 Law 61B3: > > "Defenders may ask declarer or one another (but at the risk of > creating unauthorized information)." > > One NBO wished to retain its prohibition of defenders > questioning each other, which the NBO had legally enforced under > 1997 Lawbook. Thus the 2006 draft had a 2007 amendment by the > Drafting Committee. > > Of course, it is possible that between now and then that NBO has > changed its collective mind (perhaps wishing to permit its > players to enjoy more consistent Conditions of Contest when > playing in neighbouring NBOs and/or in international > competitions). No, germany didn't change his mind and to ask is still forbidden. But e.g. to increase the enjoyment of foreign teams in the "german bridge trophy" we play it under EBL Rules and defenders are allowed to ask. ciao stefan From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 18 16:50:16 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:50:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem Message-ID: with three tricks to go, declarer leads the queen of diamonds from dummy. Qxx AJ10 It wins. Declarer now claims, saying that the rest are hers. She later says her intention was to take the diamond finesse again. Take this statement of intent as a given -- the problem is that it was not a part of her claiming statement. Is this an obvious ruling? Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to ask the two directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if they disagree. From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Mar 18 16:59:09 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:59:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> Given the first of the three tricks, I am going to give all the tricks if the K is onside. In my mind(and that of declarer if I read correctly) that is what was meant all along. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: vrijdag 18 maart 2011 16:50 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem with three tricks to go, declarer leads the queen of diamonds from dummy. Qxx AJ10 It wins. Declarer now claims, saying that the rest are hers. She later says her intention was to take the diamond finesse again. Take this statement of intent as a given -- the problem is that it was not a part of her claiming statement. Is this an obvious ruling? Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to ask the two directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if they disagree. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 18 17:09:21 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:09:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem, more information In-Reply-To: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> References: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> Message-ID: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:59:09 -0400, Hans van Staveren wrote: > Given the first of the three tricks, I am going to give all the tricks if > the K is onside. > In my mind(and that of declarer if I read correctly) that is what was > meant > all along. Thanks. Rereading the laws, it seems relevant that this line of play fails in the actual situation -- the king is offside (now singleton). But what you said seems to fit the ruling I now plan to give, two tricks to the defense when declarer takes the finesse > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: vrijdag 18 maart 2011 16:50 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem > > with three tricks to go, declarer leads the queen of diamonds from dummy. > > Qxx > > AJ10 > > It wins. Declarer now claims, saying that the rest are hers. > > She later says her intention was to take the diamond finesse again. Take > this statement of intent as a given -- the problem is that it was not a > part of her claiming statement. > > Is this an obvious ruling? Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to > ask the two directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if > they disagree. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- somepsychology.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 18 17:17:51 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:17:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D8385AF.5090508@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > with three tricks to go, declarer leads the queen of diamonds from dummy. > > Qxx > > AJ10 > > It wins. Declarer now claims, saying that the rest are hers. > > She later says her intention was to take the diamond finesse again. Take > this statement of intent as a given -- the problem is that it was not a > part of her claiming statement. > I believe it is obvious. I will assume a few things, not specifically given above. If they are not true, then my ruling could be different. assumptions: - declarer knows the King is still out; - declarer is not a very accomplished player, unaware that when a queen holds, the king might still be offside; - there are still enough diamonds out, it is unlikely that the king will drop under the ace; Then: the mere fact that declarer claims all tricks is synonymous to him saying "I'll repeat the finesse". So I rule that claimer has stated the line of repeating the finesse. And of course the success or failure of the claim then depends on the actual position of the King (not actually given in the write-up above). > Is this an obvious ruling? Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to > ask the two directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if > they disagree. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From lali808 at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 19:11:38 2011 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:11:38 -1000 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <001301cbe4d0$0c8d2be0$25a783a0$@no> <001901cbe4eb$8fa47b80$aeed7280$@no> Message-ID: As a humble newbie here, I have to add that I too find "the opening lead" little hard to understand. Under the Card Played Law 45C they make such a big deal over describing what constitutes a card played and then in Law 41A in Commencement of play they just out and out state that a faced down is a played card without giving more definition. I was told that the compulsory card played predates the opening lead section of the law so why shouldn't the same basis for what is a played card consitute the same basis for the opening lead. If no more particular unauthorized info in conveyed to your partner with the change of card not seen by partner why shouldn't it be allowed to be changed whether at the beginning or during the middle of play. Or go with the something that says any card detached from hand becomes a played card? But having it one way at one time and another way at a different time is hard for me to swallow. Can anyone give me a clearer understanding? Technically I can detach a opening lead from my hand, hold it in my hand on the table, not touching the table and then put it back into my hand ..... same info conveyed to my partner.... but if I happened to touch it to the table while thinking its "played"? On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:37:48 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > ........... > >> Again, the question is what movement or position of the card or > >> whatever > >> defines an opening face down lead as being made. Touching the table, > >> for example? > > > > Or maintaining it in a position which indicates the intention of > > eventually > > leading it. > > I was thinking of this as being good. But I started worrying about it. > Suppose a player puts a card on the table, the edge of the card on the > table, and the card faced towards the player. If the player looks up at > other people at the table with a vacant look on his face, it will look > like a played card. But if the player is still intently studying the card > or his hand, it will not look like a played card. > > Or perhaps that is a good answer. Any card touching the table in a > face-down position is led. Any card still facing the opening leader is led > if the opening leader indicates a lack of remaining thought, as by looking > away from the card and his hand. > > I had a similar problem with the ACBL bidding card regulations. A player > said she was still thinking about her bid and placed the edge of the > bidding card on the table, with the bidding card facing her. According to > the ACBL regulations, a bid is irrevocable once it touches the table. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110318/e3ed7e15/attachment.html From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Sat Mar 19 13:52:02 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:52:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001cbe634$72adc5f0$580951d0$@com> Robert Frick writes: with three tricks to go, declarer leads the queen of diamonds from dummy. Qxx AJ10 It wins. Declarer now claims, saying that the rest are hers. She later says her intention was to take the diamond finesse again. Take this statement of intent as a given -- the problem is that it was not a part of her claiming statement. Is this an obvious ruling? Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to ask the two directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if they disagree. _______________________________________________________________________ Obvias to me. Law 70D1: The director shall not accept from the claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement IF THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE NORMAL LINE OF PLAY THAT SHOULD BE LESS SUCCESSFUL. Law 70E1: The director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play...........OR UNLESS TO ADOPT THAT LINE OF PLAY WOULD BE IRRATIONAL. LHO should have the K and let the trick stand to win the last two and it could be rational to play the A to insure the contract (is it the case?), but I find no reason not trusting declarer's intention and I would allow the finesse. Laval Du Breuil Quebec From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Mar 20 23:32:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:32:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tom Stoppard (1937 - ), playwright: "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." >>The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a rectification made by the players without his instructions." >Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table >rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do >not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was >really correct (even if it was correct). > >Here there was no infraction. Right? Wrong. An obvious infraction of Law 10A. >And hence no rectification? Because the illegal ruling at the table happened to be correct, under Law 10B the Director will "allow" the ruling to stand; but such an allowance by the Director does not retrospectively cancel the Law 10A infraction by the player. >So the laws you cite are irrelevant? No. >There must be some more general law that applies, I hope. Law 90A (Procedural Penalties - Director's Authority): "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that ..... violates correct procedure ..... " Any player who knows enough about the Laws to give a ruling at the table from memory, without referring to a Lawbook, should also know enough about Law 10 to avoid giving a ruling. Thus as Director I know enough about the Laws to procedurally penalise that pompous player. (Although if the player is a novice my PP is a short lecture on summoning the Director; only for experienced players is my PP calibrated in imps or matchpoints.) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 21 01:34:23 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:34:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D835CF2.3050108@gmx.de> Message-ID: >..... >Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to ask the two >directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if >they disagree. A classic logical fallacy is the appeal to an irrelevant authority. For example, a politician may seek an edge in her primary contest for Governor of California by gaining an endorsement from a Hall of Famer from the Los Angeles (formerly Brooklyn) Dodgers. But that Hall of Famer has expertise in baseball, not expertise in governance, thus the endorsement is irrelevant. Likewise, when it comes to interpreting the Laws of Duplicate Bridge blml is a highly irrelevant(1) authority. If and when a blmler directly quotes (not paraphrases) edicts of the ACBL Laws Commission or EBU Law and Ethics Committee then that blmler is a relevant puppet. Even so that puppetry is relevant only to the ACBL or the EBU, respectively. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) As for most lightly moderated mailing lists, there is a tendency for flakes and cranks to dominate(3) discussion with their idiosyncratically eccentric points of view. When they debate what the current 2007 Lawbook requires those flakes and cranks are often simply wrong and/or cherry-pick from a Law.(2) When riding their hobby-horses for the 2018 Lawbook they typically consider only the "pro" column and ignore the "con" column. (2) Those flakes and cranks who deny the science of global warming are often simply wrong (i.e. little understanding of science and the scientific method) and/or cherry-pick from a data point. (3) I am a flake or crank who dominates discussion on blml, but with zero official scientific credentials. So anyone whose views are changed by my endorsement of the science of global warming has definitely fallen into the classic logical fallacy of seeing me as an appealing irrelevant authority. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Mar 21 04:06:51 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:06:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D835CF2.3050108@gmx.de> Message-ID: <201103210307.p2L375ln007489@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 11:34 AM 21/03/2011, you wrote: > >..... > >Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to ask the two > >directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if > >they disagree. > >A classic logical fallacy is the appeal to an irrelevant >authority. > >For example, a politician may seek an edge in her primary >contest for Governor of California by gaining an endorsement >from a Hall of Famer from the Los Angeles (formerly >Brooklyn) Dodgers. But that Hall of Famer has expertise in >baseball, not expertise in governance, thus the endorsement >is irrelevant. > >Likewise, when it comes to interpreting the Laws of >Duplicate Bridge blml is a highly irrelevant(1) authority. > >If and when a blmler directly quotes (not paraphrases) edicts >of the ACBL Laws Commission or EBU Law and Ethics Committee >then that blmler is a relevant puppet. Even so that puppetry >is relevant only to the ACBL or the EBU, respectively. > >Best wishes > >Richard Hills > >(1) As for most lightly moderated mailing lists, there is a >tendency for flakes and cranks to dominate(3) discussion with >their idiosyncratically eccentric points of view. When they >debate what the current 2007 Lawbook requires those flakes >and cranks are often simply wrong and/or cherry-pick from a >Law.(2) When riding their hobby-horses for the 2018 Lawbook >they typically consider only the "pro" column and ignore the >"con" column. > >(2) Those flakes and cranks who deny the science of global >warming are often simply wrong (i.e. little understanding of >science and the scientific method) and/or cherry-pick from a >data point. > >(3) I am a flake or crank who dominates discussion on blml, >but with zero official scientific credentials. > >So anyone whose views are changed by my endorsement of the >science of global warming has definitely fallen into the >classic logical fallacy of seeing me as an appealing >irrelevant authority. > Perhaps Richard could direct his efforts toward Cardinal George Pell, who presides in Sydney. He has stated that climate change science is incorrect, and that he (Pell) has read widely in the field and knows what is correct. This from a man who believes that intercession from a recently created Australian saint can cure cancer. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) former scientist From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Mar 21 12:43:41 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:43:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> References: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> Message-ID: <002c01cbe7bd$3ad93620$b08ba260$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> By saying 'the rest is mine' she implicitly tells to finesse once more. Isn't that obvious? ton Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Hans van Staveren Verzonden: vrijdag 18 maart 2011 16:59 Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] help, claiming problem Given the first of the three tricks, I am going to give all the tricks if the K is onside. In my mind(and that of declarer if I read correctly) that is what was meant all along. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: vrijdag 18 maart 2011 16:50 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem with three tricks to go, declarer leads the queen of diamonds from dummy. Qxx AJ10 It wins. Declarer now claims, saying that the rest are hers. She later says her intention was to take the diamond finesse again. Take this statement of intent as a given -- the problem is that it was not a part of her claiming statement. Is this an obvious ruling? Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to ask the two directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if they disagree. _______________________________________________ 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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 10.0.1204 / Virusdatabase: 1498/3515 - datum van uitgifte: 03/18/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110321/519ef322/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 21 14:09:56 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:09:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: <002c01cbe7bd$3ad93620$b08ba260$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> <002c01cbe7bd$3ad93620$b08ba260$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <4D874E24.3020000@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/03/2011 12:43, ton a ?crit : > > By saying 'the rest is mine' she implicitly tells to finesse once more. > > Isn't that obvious? > > AG : absolutely. However, we have been trained, when dealing with claim assessment, to treat with the highest degree of suspicion any statement that what was not said was obviously implied, hence the question. I, too, would rule "one more finesse", but don't feel on firm ground for doing so. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110321/62543e8a/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 21 15:50:56 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:50:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:32:22 -0400, wrote: > Tom Stoppard (1937 - ), playwright: > > "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." > >>> The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... > > Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): > > "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? > see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." > > Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): > > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a > rectification made by the players without his instructions." > >> Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table >> rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do >> not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was >> really correct (even if it was correct). >> >> Here there was no infraction. Right? > > Wrong. An obvious infraction of Law 10A. Wrong. The short answer is that L10A refers to rectifications, and those (read the definitions) only follow irregularities. And there was no irregularity. But I thought that was obvious before, so I will explain it more carefully. Take the interesting case where the table ruling was wrong. The player put placed a card touching the table, perhaps picked it up to put it back in her hand, and then led the card. There is no irregularity or infraction here and nothing requiring rectification. So L10A and L10B do not apply. You can read them yourself, you put them in this thread. Now, did the players who made the wrong table ruling commit any infaction? Laws 10A and 10B should refer to any table ruling, not just rectifications and irregularities.. But they don't. So you can lobby for change in 2018. But for now it's just one more hole in the already holey law book. It's no big deal. No one is actually going to follow the law book on this point. > >> And hence no rectification? > > Because the illegal ruling at the table happened to be correct, > under Law 10B the Director will "allow" the ruling to stand; but > such an allowance by the Director does not retrospectively > cancel the Law 10A infraction by the player. > >> So the laws you cite are irrelevant? > > No. > >> There must be some more general law that applies, I hope. > > Law 90A (Procedural Penalties - Director's Authority): > > "The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications > in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any > offence that ..... violates correct procedure ..... " > > Any player who knows enough about the Laws to give a ruling at > the table from memory, without referring to a Lawbook, should > also know enough about Law 10 to avoid giving a ruling. Thus > as Director I know enough about the Laws to procedurally > penalise that pompous player. (Although if the player is a > novice my PP is a short lecture on summoning the Director; > only for experienced players is my PP calibrated in imps or > matchpoints.) First, the main concern would be protecting the "innocent" side from the damage caused by the wrong table ruling. A procedural penalty does not do this. What can be seen in your posting is what I think should be avoided -- handing out procedural penalties to pompous people, or people you don't like, or people who annoy you. And of course you get Law 10 wrong, so I happily give you a procedural penalty. And you freely criticize someone who was perhaps just trying to be helpful. She may have just been saying what she heard. The fault really belongs to the holely law book -- it cannot be used to make this ruling because of a hole. You do not consider that there may have been a playing director, or the director might have been collecting money. Finally, you have to show that there was a violation of correct procedure in order to even do the procedural penalty. I am not saying you can't do that. But it is part of making your case, you can't leave that out. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 21 15:55:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:55:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Brooklyn Dodgers [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:34:23 -0400, wrote: >> ..... >> Or you can just vote what to do, I am going to ask the two >> directors playing today and give BLML the deciding vote if >> they disagree. > > A classic logical fallacy is the appeal to an irrelevant > authority. There are a lot of good reasons for consulting with other people before making a ruling. (This situation did not need it, as it turns out.) It shows care in making a ruling. It is liable to lead to a better ruling. And it can make it seem less like the director's personal opinion and more like a lawful ruling or at least a thoughtful ruling. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 21 16:23:12 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:23:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Mistaken explanation versus misbid -- ruling against the convention card Message-ID: This ruling seemed interesting because I ended up ruling against what was on the convention card. The auction was E S W N 1C P 3C 3C was explained as weak. The 3C bidder was strong and thought her bid showed a strong hand. North now took a overcall that worked out badly. It is reasonable that North would passed had she been told that 3C was strong. So it is an issue of mistaken explanation versus misbid. I am called during lunch. West said she never plays 3C as weak and that she has been playing with her partner for 10 years and he should know that by now. I look at their card, of course. 3C is clearly marked as weak. That would normally be end-of-story, but when I tried to explain that ruling, another player took up the cause. He argued that they should know what they are playing, which is true in ACBL-land, but no basis for rectification. He argued that they should be playing the same convention, but same story, true in ACBL-land but no basis for rectification. Then he argued that they are supposed to have two cards filled out. They had only one card filled out. If they had two cards filled out, then, if the second card was filled out by West, the cards would have conflicted and I could rule mistaken explanation. So I decided to make that ruling. When I told West the ruling, she said it wasn't fair and launched into some explanation that made no sense. This included blaming her partner and saying that she told him just two weeks ago that she didn't play that bid as weak and that he should change the card. Of course, it is precisely these previous conversations that are so relevant and yet usually so difficult to get evidence about. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 21 20:02:21 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:02:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: <4D874E24.3020000@ulb.ac.be> References: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> <002c01cbe7bd$3ad93620$b08ba260$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4D874E24.3020000@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D87A0BD.2080008@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 21/03/2011 12:43, ton a ?crit : >> >> By saying ?the rest is mine? she implicitly tells to finesse once more. >> >> Isn?t that obvious? >> >> > AG : absolutely. > > However, we have been trained, when dealing with claim assessment, to > treat with the highest degree of suspicion any statement that what was > not said was obviously implied, hence the question. > Well, my take on this is the following: when a player does not say something, it is because he believes it is self evident. When a finesse succeeds a first time, it will succeed again, won't it? Only a player who realizes that this is not true will say "I'll finesse again". A player who believes the finesse must succeed again, will not say it. > I, too, would rule "one more finesse", but don't feel on firm ground for > doing so. > > Best regards > > Alain > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Mon Mar 21 21:37:02 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:37:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <328792667.348819.1300739822509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:32:22 -0400, wrote: > > > Tom Stoppard (1937 - ), playwright: > > > > "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." > > > >>> The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... > > > > Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): > > > > "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when > > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? > > see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." > > > > Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): > > > > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a > > rectification made by the players without his instructions." > > > >> Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table > >> rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do > >> not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was > >> really correct (even if it was correct). > >> > >> Here there was no infraction. Right? > > > > Wrong. An obvious infraction of Law 10A. > > > Wrong. The short answer is that L10A refers to rectifications, and those > (read the definitions) only follow irregularities. And there was no > irregularity. Players have no right to make up their own rulings. TFLB is not nearly as holely as you think it is. What is holely is your knowledge of the laws. Robert, when was your last TD course? Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 21 23:30:55 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:30:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <328792667.348819.1300739822509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <328792667.348819.1300739822509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:37:02 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:32:22 -0400, wrote: >> >> > Tom Stoppard (1937 - ), playwright: >> > >> > "Comment is free but facts are on expenses." >> > >> >>> The table ruling (no director was called) was that ..... >> > >> > Law 10A (Right to Determine Rectification): >> > >> > "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when >> > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? >> > see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." >> > >> > Law 10B (Cancellation of Enforcement or Waiver of Rectification): >> > >> > "The Director may allow or cancel any enforcement or waiver of a >> > rectification made by the players without his instructions." >> > >> >> Yes, I would strongly recommend that players not accept table >> >> rulings from other players. Sometimes they are wrong. And I do >> >> not want a player going home wondering if the table ruling was >> >> really correct (even if it was correct). >> >> >> >> Here there was no infraction. Right? >> > >> > Wrong. An obvious infraction of Law 10A. >> >> >> Wrong. The short answer is that L10A refers to rectifications, and those >> (read the definitions) only follow irregularities. And there was no >> irregularity. > > Players have no right to make up their own rulings. > > TFLB is not nearly as holely as you think it is. > What is holely is your knowledge of the laws. > > Robert, when was your last TD course? Thomas, you could simply claim that players have no right to make up their own ruling. I guess I would agree. They shouldn't. I wouldn't like that. You can claim this is in the law book. Which is the issue being discussed. How should we settle this question? So far, I just said that Law 10 doesn't cover it. Because it restricts itself to irregularities and rectifications. Do you disagree with that? Can you find anything in the laws to support your claim? That would further the argument. I realize I might be the only one who gets tired of gratuitous insults and petty slander, but if you could mix some facts and evidence into your posting that would be nice. Bob From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 23:38:35 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:38:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] compulsory play of opening lead [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <328792667.348819.1300739822509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> References: <328792667.348819.1300739822509.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn wrote: > > Players have no right to make up their own rulings. Here, there was no irregularity, so the content of Law 10A is irrelevant. Players have to make decisions all of the time about what to do under the laws. "The board we need is not here yet, should we call the director?" "It is getting kind of noisy, should we call the director?" "The claim might be flawed, but let's get moving to the next table, so never mind, I won't call the director." "Their joke seems poor, should we call the director?" "They are playing slowly, should I call the director?" "Unfortunately for me, my lead touched the table, so it looks like I am stuck with it." > > TFLB is not nearly as holely as you think it is. I am sure Robert would be delighted to learn of any particular misreading of the laws he has made. > What is holely is your knowledge of the laws. > > Robert, when was your last TD course? > Thomas criticizes Robert's conclusion without offering any reason. Robert has carefully stated his premises and the logic for his conclusion. I think Robert got it exactly right. Thomas and others would be more helpful to pinpoint Robert's error if they can, rather than to presume there must be an error in there somewhere just because they don't like Robert's conclusion. Robert's outlook is something like this: 1. Directors generally have a pretty good idea of what to do in the cases Robert has been bringing up lately. 2. If you read the laws carefully using the definitions section and simple logic, what they say is not the same as #1. 3. Therefore, the best directors are not always obeying the laws. The response he usually gets is totally backwards, for it takes the responder's desired conclusions for granted rather than trying to follow the reasoning (if only to find Robert's error, if there is one). The response Robert usually gets is "#3 is horrible---it should never happen." "#1 is obvious, what is there to think about?" "#2 must be nonsense, because #1 is obvious and #3 is horrible." But saying #2 is nonsense without being able to say why seems to me circular. You have merely assumed your conclusion. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 05:08:42 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:08:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mistaken explanation versus misbid -- ruling against the convention card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Today, Robert Frick wrote: > This ruling seemed interesting because I ended up ruling against what was > on the convention card. > > The auction was > E ? ?S ? ?W ? ?N > 1C ? P ? ?3C > > 3C was explained as weak. The 3C bidder was strong and thought her bid > showed a strong hand. North now took a overcall that worked out badly. It > is reasonable that North would passed had she been told that 3C was > strong. So it is an issue of mistaken explanation versus misbid. I am > called during lunch. > > > West said she never plays 3C as weak and that she has been playing with > her partner for 10 years and he should know that by now. To me, this overrules the CC. Mis-explanation now seems clear to me. > > I look at their card, of course. 3C is clearly marked as weak. That would > normally be end-of-story, I disagree that that is end-of-story. I think the director should routinely spend ten or twenty seconds to find out if the agreement on the CC is understood and agreed by the player who might have misbid. This is especially true if the CC is written in only one hand or computer-generated. Or, , if only one CC is present. > but when I tried to explain that ruling, another > player took up the cause. He argued that they should know what they are > playing, which is true in ACBL-land, but no basis for rectification. He > argued that they should be playing the same convention, but same story, > true in ACBL-land but no basis for rectification. > > Then he argued that they are supposed to have two cards filled out. A very good point for his side. One CC for the pair implies a much higher likelihood of no true meeting of the minds. Remember, their understandings are crucial, not their agreements. > They > had only one card filled out. If they had two cards filled out, then, if > the second card was filled out by West, the cards would have conflicted > and I could rule mistaken explanation. So I decided to make that ruling. Seems perfectly appropriate to me. > > When I told West the ruling, she said it wasn't fair and launched into > some explanation that made no sense. This included blaming her partner and > saying that she told him just two weeks ago that she didn't play that bid > as weak and that he should change the card. This confirms your final ruling is nearly 100% percent accurate, in my opinion. > Of course, it is precisely > these previous conversations that are so relevant and yet usually so > difficult to get evidence about. > Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 22 05:25:32 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:25:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <530456916.365228.1300256013205.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Professor AJ Pitman Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science The University of New South Wales "It is very hard to calmly respond to questions that are ill-informed and misrepresent anything vaguely scientific. It would be like asking a cardiologist to respond to the well known theory that humans do not have a heart and cardiologists only claim we have a heart so they can make lots of money claiming to operate on them. This is so utterly without foundation that it is actually hard to say anything but 'that is stupid'. If we respond like this to equivalent questions on climate science we are accused of being defensive or not knowing etc." Robert Frick, 22nd March 2011, the pot calling the kettle black: >>..... >>I realize I might be the only one who gets tired of gratuitous >>insults and petty slander, but if you could mix some facts and >>evidence into your posting that would be nice. >> >>Bob Robert Frick, 1st January 2011, petty slander of Drafting Committee: >>..... >>as far as I know, the claim laws and UI laws are too >>incompetently written to be actually followed. Robert Frick, 30th September 2010, lack of facts and evidence: >>..... >>Richard, for example, is not a director, AFAIK, and does not face >>the problems a director faces. >>..... Jerry Fusselman, 22nd March 2011: >..... >Robert's outlook is something like this: > >1. Directors generally have a pretty good idea of what to do in >the cases Robert has been bringing up lately. > >2. If you read the laws carefully using the definitions section >and simple logic, what they say is not the same as #1. > >3. Therefore, the best directors are not always obeying the laws. >..... "It is very hard to calmly respond to postings that are ill-informed and misrepresent anything vaguely Lawful. It would be like asking a cardiologist to respond to the well known theory that humans do not have a heart and cardiologists only claim we have a heart so they can make lots of money claiming to operate on them. This is so utterly without foundation that it is actually hard to say anything but 'that is stupid'. If we respond like this to equivalent postings on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge we are accused of gratuitous insults and petty slander etc." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 22 17:53:19 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:53:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: <4D87A0BD.2080008@skynet.be> References: <007501cbe585$6af89c40$40e9d4c0$@nl> <002c01cbe7bd$3ad93620$b08ba260$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> <4D874E24.3020000@ulb.ac.be> <4D87A0BD.2080008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4D88D3FF.4090004@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/03/2011 20:02, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 21/03/2011 12:43, ton a ?crit : >>> By saying ?the rest is mine? she implicitly tells to finesse once more. >>> >>> Isn?t that obvious? >>> >>> >> AG : absolutely. >> >> However, we have been trained, when dealing with claim assessment, to >> treat with the highest degree of suspicion any statement that what was >> not said was obviously implied, hence the question. >> > Well, my take on this is the following: > when a player does not say something, it is because he believes it is > self evident. > When a finesse succeeds a first time, it will succeed again, won't it? > Only a player who realizes that this is not true will say "I'll finesse > again". A player who believes the finesse must succeed again, will not > say it. So, it must be a poor player, but not the one who didn't repeat the finesse because he was told that "finesses succed only half of the time". From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 22 17:56:43 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:56:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Mistaken explanation versus misbid -- ruling against the convention card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D88D4CB.7090804@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/03/2011 5:08, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > >> but when I tried to explain that ruling, another >> player took up the cause. He argued that they should know what they are >> playing, which is true in ACBL-land, but no basis for rectification. He >> argued that they should be playing the same convention, but same story, >> true in ACBL-land but no basis for rectification. >> >> Then he argued that they are supposed to have two cards filled out. > A very good point for his side. One CC for the pair implies a much > higher likelihood of no true meeting of the minds. Remember, their > understandings are crucial, not their agreements. > AG : I don't understand this. i've usually been responsible for my parrtnerships' convention cards, and do not fill them in manually. In modern times of software and xeroxing, do you expect each partner to fill one card ? (doesn't make the ruling wrong, of course) From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 19:10:09 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:10:09 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Mistaken explanation versus misbid -- ruling against the convention card In-Reply-To: <4D88D4CB.7090804@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D88D4CB.7090804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 22/03/2011 5:08, Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > > >> but when I tried to explain that ruling, another >>> player took up the cause. He argued that they should know what they are >>> playing, which is true in ACBL-land, but no basis for rectification. He >>> argued that they should be playing the same convention, but same story, >>> true in ACBL-land but no basis for rectification. >>> >>> Then he argued that they are supposed to have two cards filled out. >>> >> A very good point for his side. One CC for the pair implies a much >> higher likelihood of no true meeting of the minds. Remember, their >> understandings are crucial, not their agreements. >> >> AG : I don't understand this. i've usually been responsible for my > parrtnerships' convention cards, and do not fill them in manually. > In modern times of software and xeroxing, do you expect each partner to > fill one card ? > > (doesn't make the ruling wrong, of course) > > No, I don't expect each partner to fill a card by hand, but if they do, they happen to have better evidence that what is written down on their convention cards matches their partnership understanding, because they both wrote it. Also, if they did not have time or inclination to write out or print out the required second convention card, it seems to me reasonable that they might not have had time or inclination to verify their partnership understandings. That evidence would make it more likely that what happened was MI. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110322/ee6097a3/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 23 01:28:09 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:28:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] netiquette In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:25:32 -0400, wrote: > Professor AJ Pitman > Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science > The University of New South Wales > > "It is very hard to calmly respond to questions that are ill-informed > and misrepresent anything vaguely scientific. It would be like asking > a cardiologist to respond to the well known theory that humans do not > have a heart and cardiologists only claim we have a heart so they can > make lots of money claiming to operate on them. This is so utterly > without foundation that it is actually hard to say anything but 'that > is stupid'. If we respond like this to equivalent questions on climate > science we are accused of being defensive or not knowing etc." > > Robert Frick, 22nd March 2011, the pot calling the kettle black: > >>> ..... >>> I realize I might be the only one who gets tired of gratuitous >>> insults and petty slander, but if you could mix some facts and >>> evidence into your posting that would be nice. >>> >>> Bob > > Robert Frick, 1st January 2011, petty slander of Drafting Committee: > >>> ..... >>> as far as I know, the claim laws and UI laws are too >>> incompetently written to be actually followed. You are missing some very important distinctions. One is relevance. I think the technical quality of the laws would be much better if a more modern method was used to construct them. So the quality of the existing lawbook is a relevant issue to me and I think to BLML. Relevant to this issue, Law 10 should address all table rulings, not just rectifications of irregularites. This is a technical question, and my capabilities as a director are irrelevant. The same point I made could be made by an 8-year-old terrorist serial killer and it would be just as relevant. So you have to look at relevance. The second is willingness to provide evidence. If there is something in that thread that calls into question my competence as director, which there isn't, then Thomas could have mentioned that in his original post. Or mentioned it when asked. What is the evidence for any of his claims? In contrast, I have discussed the problems with L16A at length. I perhaps have not mentioned all of the glaring problems with the claim laws, but I am happy to try to collect them and then present them. Do you have to look at if people have evidence or are trying to present evidence. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 23 03:40:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:40:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] netiquette [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911) almost wrote this lyric for The Mikado: As some day it must happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list - I've got a little list Of blml offenders who might well be under ground And who never would be missed - who never would be missed! There's the pestilential nuisances who write large monographs, Those posters who write flabby text in endless paragraphs - All pedants who obscurify, and "autochthon" you flat - All persons who in quoting you, misquote your posts like *that* - And all rude writers who on four-letter words insist - They'd none of 'em be missed - they'd none of 'em be missed! CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list - he's got 'em on the list; And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed. There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! And the people posting polemics, who flame it in your face, They never would be missed - they never would be missed! Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All likely Laws but ours, and every country but his own; Plus the weirdo from the provinces(1), who writes rubbish as a crank, And who doesn't read the Lawbook, but still RAs will spank; And that singular anomaly, the pseudo-humorist - I don't think they'd be missed - I'm sure they'd not be missed! William Schoder, 17th June 2004: Gee! Two questions. 1. Where are YOU listed? 2. since you've covered just about everyone in BLML, would that shut it down? Kojak Richard Hills, 18th June 2004: Two answers. 1. I am obviously listed as "that singular anomaly, the pseudo- humorist". Somewhat less obviously, I also appear at: There's the threading serenader, and the others of their race, And the pre-prandialist - I've got them on the list! I qualify as a "threading serenader" due to my prolific habit of starting new threads on blml. "Post-prandial" is used as an adjective to refer to an after- dinner speech. But all my blml postings are written before dinner, hence "pre-prandialist". 2. I do not wish to shut down blml, merely encourage blmlers to undergo some critical self-appraisal before posting. Of course, as a person in a glass house without sin, I have cast the first stone. The mixed metaphorist - I've got them on the list! :-) Best wishes Richard Hills 23rd March 2011 casting of the first seven stones: (1) "The Reading Bridge Club is one of the best (and oldest) provincial bridge clubs" according to the RBC website. The blmler Nigel Guthrie is a distinguished member. Technically Long Island is not a province and As Far As I Know(2) zero distinguished Duplicate(4) Bridge Directors are resident in Long Island. (2) As Far As I Know is a great way of perpetrating slurs(3) with no evidence. For example, it is logically valid to state, "As Far As I Know there is a teapot in orbit around the former planet Pluto", since telescopes lack the resolution to confirm or deny the existence of this teapot (indeed, only in 2005 did telescopes discover the second and third moons of Pluto, Nix and Hydra). (3) "Richard, for example, is not(5) a director, AFAIK, and does not face the problems a director faces." (4) AFAIK a distinguished House-Rules (not Duplicate) Bridge Director is resident in Long Island. AFAIK this House-Rules Bridge Director does not face problems, but rather runs away from problems. AFAIK giving an offending side average-plus may make a House-Rules Bridge Director more popular. AFAIK the correct ruling of average-minus by a Duplicate Bridge Director might make that Duplicate Bridge Director unpopular at that table, but it provides equity to those innocent sides at other tables who are sitting in the same direction as the offending side. (5) To set the record straight, I have been the Duplicate Bridge Director at many low-level and medium-level events. I am now retired from Directing (instead going to the movies and sending emailed reviews to Marv French). However, I faced a high-level problem that National Directors faced when I served on an Appeals Committee during the recent Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge. (6) "In contrast, I have discussed the problems with L16A at length."(7) (7) GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). AFAIK a House-Rules Bridge Director would want to find "problems" in Law 16A, thereby giving a figleaf of justification for House-Ruling. AFAIK zero Duplicate Bridge Directors have observed these particular Law 16A "problems". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 09:19:01 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:19:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <530456916.365228.1300256013205.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > Robert Frick, 22nd March 2011, the pot calling the kettle black: > > >>..... > >>I realize I might be the only one who gets tired of gratuitous > >>insults and petty slander, but if you could mix some facts and > >>evidence into your posting that would be nice. > >> > >>Bob > > I have never seen a gratuitous insult or petty slander from Robert, not even one. He presents evidence for his positions very well. > Robert Frick, 1st January 2011, petty slander of Drafting Committee: > > >>..... > >>as far as I know, the claim laws and UI laws are too > >>incompetently written to be actually followed. > > Hardly slander. Saying that a few paragraphs are incompetently written does not mean there is anything wrong with the people on the committee who wrote it. I would guess that most published authors, if they are honest with themselves, recognize that several of their own paragraphs could justly be called incompetently written. It rather depends on how high your standards are. The higher your standards, the more likely you can admit this kind of error in your work. Besides, the work product of committees is often of mixed quality just because of committee dynamics. Robert has high standards of what constitutes clear writing. Why not use that to your advantage? I would think the drafting committee would welcome this kind on input. > Robert Frick, 30th September 2010, lack of facts and evidence: > > >>..... > >>Richard, for example, is not a director, AFAIK, and does not face > >>the problems a director faces. > >>..... > Is this the best example that Richard's research can find of Robert not knowing all of the facts every time? The example is irrelevant. Maybe I can clarify Robert's position a little bit. Robert wants some relevant facts and evidence in these discussions, but he is not asking anyone to have perfect knowledge. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110323/23febaeb/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 24 01:53:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:53:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Strong or weak analogy? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman, March 2011: >>..... >>He [Robert Frick] presents evidence for his positions very well. >>..... >>I would think the drafting committee would welcome this kind of >>input. >>..... Rudyard Kipling, Just So Stories, on kindly input: 'Now attend to me,' said Painted Jaguar, 'because this is very important. My mother said that when I meet a Hedgehog I am to drop him into the water and then he will uncoil, and when I meet a Tortoise I am to scoop him out of his shell with my paw. Now which of you is Hedgehog and which is Tortoise? because, to save my spots, I can't tell.' 'Are you sure of what your Mummy told you?' said Stickly-Prickly Hedgehog(1). 'Are you quite sure? Perhaps she said that when you uncoil a Tortoise you must shell him out the water with a scoop, and when you paw a Hedgehog you must drop him on the shell.' 'Are you sure of what your Mummy told you?' said Slow-and-Solid Tortoise(2). 'Are you quite sure? Perhaps she said that when you water a Hedgehog you must drop him into your paw, and when you meet a Tortoise you must shell him till he uncoils.' 'I don't think it was at all like that,' said Painted Jaguar, but he felt a little puzzled; 'but, please, say it again more distinctly.' Herman De Wael, December 2004: >At the end of my dream this morning, someone asked about blml >"isn't that where people are discussing the number of angels >dancing on a pinhead?" > >Now fully awake, I came up with the answer: > >"No, that question was settled last week, there are 793 of >them; although some lunatics continue to assert there are only >792. This week we are debating whether they are doing the waltz >or the tango!". Richard Hills, December 2004: I dreamt that Herman De Wael, myself and Wayne Burrows were in a train arguing about the definitional boundary between an "undiscussed" call, and an implicit concealed partnership agreement. I then dreamt that through the train's window, we observed a black sheep in a field. Herman said, "How interesting; all sheep are black." I said, "Not so; some sheep are black." Wayne said, "There exists at least one field, which contains at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black." :-) Best wishes Richard Hills (1) Stickly-Prickly Hedgehog is a strong or weak analogy to Jerry? (2) Slow-and-Solid Tortoise is a strong or weak analogy to Robert? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 24 12:42:16 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:42:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] help, claiming problem In-Reply-To: <4D88D3FF.4090004@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 21/03/2011 12:43, ton a ?crit : >>> By saying ?the rest is mine? she implicitly tells to finesse once more. >>> >>> Isn?t that obvious? >>> >>> >> AG : absolutely. >> >> However, we have been trained, when dealing with claim assessment, to >> treat with the highest degree of suspicion any statement that what was >> not said was obviously implied, hence the question. >> > Well, my take on this is the following: > when a player does not say something, it is because he believes it is > self evident. > When a finesse succeeds a first time, it will succeed again, won't it? > Only a player who realizes that this is not true will say "I'll finesse > again". A player who believes the finesse must succeed again, will not > say it. So, it must be a poor player, but not the one who didn't repeat the finesse because he was told that "finesses succed only half of the time". _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 24 12:42:41 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:42:41 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Mistaken explanation versus misbid -- ruling against the convention card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2D27FF0DFB124E718B90E4150ECB86AC@Thain> Grattan Endicott This ruling seemed interesting because I ended up ruling against what was > on the convention card. > > The auction was > E ? ?S ? ?W ? ?N > 1C ? P ? ?3C > > 3C was explained as weak. The 3C bidder was strong and thought her bid > showed a strong hand. North now took a overcall that worked out badly. It > is reasonable that North would passed had she been told that 3C was > strong. So it is an issue of mistaken explanation versus misbid. I am > called during lunch. > > > West said she never plays 3C as weak and that she has been playing with > her partner for 10 years and he should know that by now. To me, this overrules the CC. Mis-explanation now seems clear to me. > > I look at their card, of course. 3C is clearly marked as weak. That would > normally be end-of-story, I disagree that that is end-of-story. I think the director should routinely spend ten or twenty seconds to find out if the agreement on the CC is understood and agreed by the player who might have misbid. This is especially true if the CC is written in only one hand or computer-generated. Or, , if only one CC is present. > but when I tried to explain that ruling, another > player took up the cause. He argued that they should know what they are > playing, which is true in ACBL-land, but no basis for rectification. He > argued that they should be playing the same convention, but same story, > true in ACBL-land but no basis for rectification. > > Then he argued that they are supposed to have two cards filled out. A very good point for his side. One CC for the pair implies a much higher likelihood of no true meeting of the minds. Remember, their understandings are crucial, not their agreements. > They > had only one card filled out. If they had two cards filled out, then, if > the second card was filled out by West, the cards would have conflicted > and I could rule mistaken explanation. So I decided to make that ruling. Seems perfectly appropriate to me. > > When I told West the ruling, she said it wasn't fair and launched into > some explanation that made no sense. This included blaming her partner and > saying that she told him just two weeks ago that she didn't play that bid > as weak and that he should change the card. This confirms your final ruling is nearly 100% percent accurate, in my opinion. > Of course, it is precisely > these previous conversations that are so relevant and yet usually so > difficult to get evidence about. > Jerry Fusselman _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 24 23:20:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:20:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] He and she, whe and ble [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D340C2B.7060402@aol.com> Message-ID: The Introduction, final paragraph: "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, ***and vice versa***." Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am uneasy about the thought that a player might >be given an opponent's system card and not receive >redress if ***he*** is misinformed by it as to the >meaning of that opponent's call. The opponent may >deviate from the meaning as Law 40C allows but must >not allow the player to be given a system card that >misrepresents ***her*** partnership understandings. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: If: (a) a player is given a correct verbal explanation by an opponent, thus (b) that player did not receive MI, so (c) there is no basis for score adjustment, but (d) the opponents have mismarked system cards, ergo (e) the opponents have infracted Law 40B2(a), then (f) the opponents are liable to be penalised, and (g) the Director may use Law 81C to require a simple system card to be used by the opponents for the rest of the session. Best wishes Richard Hills P.S. For simplicity, in future I will use "he" to refer to the offending player, "she" to refer to the non- offending player, "whe" to refer to the Director, and "ble" to refer to another blmler. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Mar 24 23:43:48 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:43:48 -0000 Subject: [BLML] He and she, whe and ble [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <86323BFDBDFB4DB88FFD8B4F9125CAAA@changeme1> The female has a problem understanding "reversing". ------------------------------------------- A new middle east crisis erupted last night as Dubai Television was refused permission to broadcast 'The Flintstones'. A spokesman for the channel said.... 'A claim was made that people in Dubai would not understand the humour, but we know for a fact that people in Abu Dhabi Do ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] He and she, whe and ble [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > The Introduction, final paragraph: > > "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the > Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. Finally, > unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the > singular includes the plural and the masculine includes > the feminine, ***and vice versa***." > > Grattan Endicott: > >>+=+ I am uneasy about the thought that a player might >>be given an opponent's system card and not receive >>redress if ***he*** is misinformed by it as to the >>meaning of that opponent's call. The opponent may >>deviate from the meaning as Law 40C allows but must >>not allow the player to be given a system card that >>misrepresents ***her*** partnership understandings. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > If: > > (a) a player is given a correct verbal explanation by an > opponent, thus > > (b) that player did not receive MI, so > > (c) there is no basis for score adjustment, but > > (d) the opponents have mismarked system cards, ergo > > (e) the opponents have infracted Law 40B2(a), then > > (f) the opponents are liable to be penalised, and > > (g) the Director may use Law 81C to require a simple > system card to be used by the opponents for the rest of > the session. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > P.S. For simplicity, in future I will use "he" to refer > to the offending player, "she" to refer to the non- > offending player, "whe" to refer to the Director, and > "ble" to refer to another blmler. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3526 - Release Date: 03/24/11 > From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Mar 26 00:27:03 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:27:03 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27 Message-ID: <201103252327.p2PNR7lJ031794@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> I have always hated L27. In 1995 I was a bolshie who refused to rule as our NA decreed. They claimed that an IB could not be conventional. In 2000, the rulings were easy, if a bit draconian. I used to enjoy ruling against the 1C IBers, where 1C could show as little as 2 clubs. "Bad luck, you should have been playing 4 card majors" was my line. Nowadays, I just bend over backwards to allow just about any plausible rectification and use L27D to mop up. So the bidding went North East South West 1H pass pass 1H I was called, and to save any problem, West immediately admitted that she had not seen the opening bid. I never take them away from the table in any case, just giving some theoretical guidelines and let them try to understand them. So I guess that West does not have a bid in her bag which will allow partner to remain in the auction. She changes to 2H and all pass. I think "that should be interesting" but get called away and forget to go back to the table. Later, I find that hearts were 6 1 0 6, and by some miracle EW made +110. Almost a top as most NS pairs eventually gave up only 100 in whatever contract they landed in. Then it occurred to me that except for the IB, there was no way that EW could have landed in 2H, so L27D to the rescue. Unfortunately I have never actually had to deploy this particular law in anger so what adjusted score should I give? Not av+, av+ I hope, despite my constant attempt to leave all the punters happy. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Sat Mar 26 00:50:50 2011 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:50:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_27?= In-Reply-To: <201103252327.p2PNR7lJ031794@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201103252327.p2PNR7lJ031794@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1Q3GmI-23M7NI0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> From: Tony Musgrove > I have always hated L27. In 1995 I was a bolshie who > refused to rule as our NA decreed. They claimed > that an IB could not be conventional. In 2000, the > rulings were easy, if a bit draconian. I used to > enjoy ruling against the 1C IBers, where 1C > could show as little as 2 clubs. "Bad luck, you > should have been playing 4 card majors" was > my line. Nowadays, I just bend over backwards > to allow just about any plausible rectification and > use L27D to mop up. > > So the bidding went > North East South West > 1H pass pass 1H > > I was called, and to save any problem, West > immediately admitted that she had not seen > the opening bid. I never take them away from > the table in any case, just giving some theoretical > guidelines and let them try to understand them. > So I guess that West does not have a bid in > her bag which will allow partner to remain in the > auction. She changes to 2H and all pass. I > think "that should be interesting" but get called > away and forget to go back to the table. > Later, I find that hearts were 6 1 0 6, and by > some miracle EW made +110. Almost a > top as most NS pairs eventually gave up only 100 > in whatever contract they landed in. > Then it occurred to me that except for the IB, there > was no way that EW could have landed in 2H, so > L27D to the rescue. Unfortunately I have never > actually had to deploy this particular law in anger > so what adjusted score should I give? Not av+, av+ > I hope, despite my constant attempt to leave all > the punters happy. Rule No.1 when applying Law 27B: Whenever you apply Law 27B2 there is no way to 27D. You _may_ have a Law 23 case but apart from that the result is rub-of-the-green. Proof: Law 27D starts with "If following the application of B1 ..." From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Mar 26 06:28:13 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:28:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <1Q3GmI-23M7NI0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> References: <201103252327.p2PNR7lJ031794@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <1Q3GmI-23M7NI0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <201103260528.p2Q5SIgJ024821@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 10:50 AM 26/03/2011, you wrote: >From: Tony Musgrove > > I have always hated L27. In 1995 I was a bolshie who > > refused to rule as our NA decreed. They claimed > > that an IB could not be conventional. In 2000, the > > rulings were easy, if a bit draconian. I used to > > enjoy ruling against the 1C IBers, where 1C > > could show as little as 2 clubs. "Bad luck, you > > should have been playing 4 card majors" was > > my line. Nowadays, I just bend over backwards > > to allow just about any plausible rectification and > > use L27D to mop up. > > > > So the bidding went > > North East South West > > 1H pass pass 1H > > > > I was called, and to save any problem, West > > immediately admitted that she had not seen > > the opening bid. I never take them away from > > the table in any case, just giving some theoretical > > guidelines and let them try to understand them. > > So I guess that West does not have a bid in > > her bag which will allow partner to remain in the > > auction. She changes to 2H and all pass. I > > think "that should be interesting" but get called > > away and forget to go back to the table. > > Later, I find that hearts were 6 1 0 6, and by > > some miracle EW made +110. Almost a > > top as most NS pairs eventually gave up only 100 > > in whatever contract they landed in. > > Then it occurred to me that except for the IB, there > > was no way that EW could have landed in 2H, so > > L27D to the rescue. Unfortunately I have never > > actually had to deploy this particular law in anger > > so what adjusted score should I give? Not av+, av+ > > I hope, despite my constant attempt to leave all > > the punters happy. > >Rule No.1 when applying Law 27B: > >Whenever you apply Law 27B2 there is no way to 27D. >You _may_ have a Law 23 case but apart from that >the result is rub-of-the-green. > >Proof: Law 27D starts with "If following the application >of B1 ..." > Thanks Peter, I actually remembered that about an hour after I posted it. The posting was as a result of waking up at 4 am and thinking I had made an error...the 2nd this month. Cheers Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 02:29:47 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:29:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ case 6 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Panellist Bramley: >..... >My preference is for players to admit to a misunderstanding when >questioned, EVEN WHEN LEGALLY PERMITTED TO EVADE ANSWERING. Doing so >will nearly always obviate a ruling (or a Committee) and allow for a >valid table result; evasion nearly always has the opposite effect. Non-panellist Hills: In my opinion, Bramley should be ejected from future panels for using the pejorative words "evade" and "evasion" against a totally innocent East who exercised her rights under Law 75C (Mistaken Call): " ..... the mistake was in South's call. 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." and also the WBF Code of Practice (not yet adopted by the ACBL) gives this pertinent advice to anyone condemning East as an evader: "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." Panellist Goldsmith: >..... >I'd also give E/W a 1/4 board PP for East's failing to state before >the opening lead that there was a mis-explanation. There is no way >that she was certain that partner's explanation was correct, so she >has to speak up. Non-panellist Hills: Not so. East merely has to speak up if West has given an incorrect explanation and East _knows_ that West have given an incorrect explanation; see Law 72B1. If East guesses that West has given a correct explanation (as the Appeals Committee determined was true after inspecting the East-West system notes) then East is entitled to follow through on that guess at her own risk. Panellist Rigal: >This is an unfortunate case; nobody really did anything wrong but >it seems to me as if it was indeed a misbid not misinformation >thanks to the system notes. Good ruling. Panellist Wildavsky: >I do not understand the basis of the TD's ruling, since it appears >that, although North misunderstood, he was provided with accurate >information. The AC seems to have been more thorough. >..... Non-panellist Hills: If the facts are as stipulated by the Appeals Committee, then I join with Rigal and Wildavsky in applauding the Appeals Committee's ruling as consistent with Law. But one silly dissenting voice is: Panellist Wolff >Again CD is committed by NS so another Zero to them with probably >only an average to EW, at best Average +. Again when CD occurs >bridge, as we know it, stops and speculation reigns. At last >reports it is impossible to then look into everyone's mind and >accurately (or even close to) determine what would have happened. >Stop CD by penalizing it out of existence and presto changeo >partnerships will suddenly stop having these bridge breaking >mixups and either learn their conventions or cross them off their >convention cards. Non-panellist Hills: In my opinion, Wolff did a great service to the game worldwide as WBF President by authoring a series of articles about Crypto and Telltale, which highlighted for grass-roots players the facts that having CPUs and using UI from partner was not permitted. However, in my very sincere opinion, grass-roots ACBL Directors do not deserve being misled by Wolff's past services causing him to be a current panellist, with Wolff babbling on about non-existent CD infractions and inappropriate artificial adjusted scores (when, if a real infraction had occurred in this case, an assigned adjusted score is required). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 04:03:04 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:03:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ case 6 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > Panellist Bramley: > > >..... > >My preference is for players to admit to a misunderstanding when > >questioned, EVEN WHEN LEGALLY PERMITTED TO EVADE ANSWERING. Doing so > >will nearly always obviate a ruling (or a Committee) and allow for a > >valid table result; evasion nearly always has the opposite effect. > > Non-panellist Hills: > > In my opinion, Bramley should be ejected from future panels for > using the pejorative words "evade" and "evasion" against a totally > innocent East who exercised her rights under Law 75C (Mistaken Call): I agree, but Richard did not mention Bramley's phrase, "East?s dodgy response." If I was on the jury for libel tort by Sandra Marlin vs. Bramley, I could well vote against Bramley. I would probably be in the minority unless Sandra Marlin makes a living at bridge. The majority on the jury would probably say, "It's just a game." This is another illustration of what I have hinted at before on BLML: Bridge officials (i.e., directors, panels, committees, and casebook commentators) are nowhere near as good at reading minds as they think they are, and the game would be better served if they stopped trying such impossible feats of mind reading and instead would simply administer the laws in a more even-handed, nonpejorative, procedural fashion. That's part of why I consider the recent laws' giving directors " increased responsibilities" a mistake. It seems to me better to give them clear procedures---and perhaps even a list of proprieties, which would include avoiding libel and slander. > > and also the WBF Code of Practice (not yet adopted by the ACBL) gives > this pertinent advice to anyone condemning East as an evader: > > "A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not > subject to criticism." I agree with this. > > Panellist Goldsmith: > > >..... > >I'd also give E/W a 1/4 board PP for East's failing to state before > >the opening lead that there was a mis-explanation. There is no way > >that she was certain that partner's explanation was correct, so she > >has to speak up. > > Non-panellist Hills: > > Not so. ?East merely has to speak up if West has given an incorrect > explanation and East _knows_ that West have given an incorrect > explanation; see Law 72B1. ?If East guesses that West has given a > correct explanation (as the Appeals Committee determined was true > after inspecting the East-West system notes) then East is entitled > to follow through on that guess at her own risk. I don't exactly agree with this. The director decides what the partnership understanding is. East is required to state the partnership understanding---knowing that director has the final determination of that. East will not always be perfect in this, obviously. I don't think that East has to _know_ with 100% certainty what the understanding is. If East thinks it is 90% sure that the director will rule that there was no understanding , then I would advise East to correct the explanation along that line, but I would not hint that East's ethics are questionable if she did not. >?But one silly dissenting voice is: > > > Panellist Wolff > > >Again CD is committed by NS so another Zero to them with probably > >only an average to EW, at best Average +. Again when CD occurs > >bridge, as we know it, stops and speculation reigns. At last > >reports it is impossible to then look into everyone's mind and > >accurately (or even close to) determine what would have happened. > >Stop CD by penalizing it out of existence and presto changeo > >partnerships will suddenly stop having these bridge breaking > >mixups and either learn their conventions or cross them off their > >convention cards. > > Non-panellist Hills: > > In my opinion, Wolff did a great service to the game worldwide as > WBF President by authoring a series of articles about Crypto and > Telltale, which highlighted for grass-roots players the facts that > having CPUs and using UI from partner was not permitted. > > However, in my very sincere opinion, grass-roots ACBL Directors do > not deserve being misled by Wolff's past services causing him to be > a current panellist, with Wolff babbling on about non-existent CD > infractions and inappropriate artificial adjusted scores (when, if > a real infraction had occurred in this case, an assigned adjusted > score is required). > I agree with this too. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 04:52:58 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:52:58 +1100 Subject: [BLML] New Orleans NABC+ case 6 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Not so. ?East merely has to speak up if West has given an incorrect >>explanation and East _knows_ that West have given an incorrect >>explanation; see Law 72B1. ?If East guesses that West has given a >>correct explanation (as the Appeals Committee determined was true >>after inspecting the East-West system notes) then East is entitled >>to follow through on that guess at her own risk. Jerry Fusselman: >I don't exactly agree with this. The director decides what the >partnership understanding is. East is required to state the >partnership understanding---knowing that director has the final >determination of that. East will not always be perfect in this, >obviously. I don't think that East has to _know_ with 100% certainty >what the understanding is. If East thinks it is 90% sure that the >director will rule that there was no understanding , then I would >advise East to correct the explanation along that line, but I would >not hint that East's ethics are questionable if she did not. Richard Hills: I don't exactly agree with this. Firstly, a point of clarification. When I referred to East guessing I should have referred to East's _best_ guess. If from East's point of view she has a 40% guess that she misbid and a 60% guess that West misexplained, then East acting in accordance with East's 40% guess could justly be deemed an evasion. Contrariwise, if from East's point of view she has 60% confidence that West has correctly explained and that she has misbid, in my opinion East should not reject this 60% guess merely because Herman De Wael is the Director and Herman (almost) always rules misexplanation rather than misbid. This issue of intentionally lying to keep the Director happy has been much discussed on blml before, and it seems to me that this True Lies concept is now definitely refuted by the new 2007 Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Dialogue from True Lies (1994 action comedy): "They call him the Sand Spider." "Why?" "Probably because it sounds scary." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From lali808 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 06:01:19 2011 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:01:19 -1000 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view Message-ID: N - E - S - W 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D 3H - P - 3S - P 4H - P - 4S - P P - P 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall no alerts result 4S -1 N/S have Stolen bids on their cc W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no alert S's transfer bid and therefore there was a logical alternative for S to pass and not continue on to 4S. W wanted the contract turned back to 4H going down 3. S hand was something like K9xxx Qx xxx Qx. Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical alternative for S looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 fit in S and possibly only a 4/2 fit in H to leave contract in 4H. E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 turned out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure that he was right in is evaluation of the situation. E also added to his argument that some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so having insisted on H twice, she could have had that type of hand and passing 4H was a logical alternative. I am posting this to see what other people think. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110329/f86771d8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 29 07:01:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:01:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lali: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1NT 2D 2H >3D 3H Pass 3S >Pass 4H Pass 4S >Pass Pass Pass > >15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall >no alerts >result 4S -1 >N/S have Stolen bids on their cc > >W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the >UI of no alert S's transfer bid and therefore there was a >logical alternative for S to pass and not continue on to >4S.? W wanted the contract turned back to 4H going down 3. > >S hand was something like? K9xxx? Qx? xxx? Qx. > >Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was >NOT a logical alternative for S looking at her hand knowing >they have at least a 5/2 fit in S and possibly only a 4/2 >fit in H to leave contract in 4H. > >E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because >the +100 turned out to be a good score for them but said he >was still 100% sure that he was right in is evaluation of >the situation.??E also added to his argument that some NT >bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so having insisted >on H twice, she could have had that type of hand and >passing 4H was a logical alternative. > >I am posting this to see what other people think. RJBH: The problem with bridge quiz books of the "what call do you make?" or "what card do you play" ilk is that the fact when you are asked a question by the author you are alerted to the fact that you are supposed to do something clever. In one of his bridge quiz books Philip Alder cunningly solved this problem by sometimes posing the "what do you?" question AFTER the critical moment had slipped past, not noticed by the unobservant reader. So, in Lali's problem, the critical moment was not when 4S was bid by South, but rather on the previous round when 3S was selected. Both South and the Director asked themselves the wrong question. They should not have been asking, "Is it indeed the only logical alternative to deduce a misunderstanding?" Rather, South and the Director should have asked, "If North had alerted and explained 2H as a transfer to spades, would it be a logical alternative to Pass out 3H?" In my opinion the answer to that question is Yes, but I suspect that I do not belong to the same "class of players" as South. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 08:34:20 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:34:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/3/29 Lali : > N? - E? -? S? -? W > > 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D > 3H? -? P? - 3S? - P > 4H -? P? - 4S? - P > P? -?? P > > 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall > no alerts > result 4S -1 > N/S have Stolen bids on their cc > > W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no alert > S's transfer bid and therefore there was a logical alternative for S to pass > and not continue on to 4S.? W wanted the contract turned back to 4H going > down 3. > S hand was something like? K9xxx? Qx? xxx? Qx. I suppose the real hand was either K9xxx-Qx-xxx-Qxx or K9xxx-Qx-xxxx-Qx 12 cards in no legal bridge hand. > > Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical > alternative for S looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 fit > in S and possibly only a 4/2 fit in H to leave contract in 4H. > > E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 turned > out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure that he was > right in is evaluation of the situation.??E also added to his argument that > some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so having insisted on H > twice, she could have had that type of hand and passing 4H was a logical > alternative. > > I am posting this to see what other people think. North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx 4H would then be a far better contract than 4S, eventhough none would be a great game to bid. And north might have two small spades. I agree that passing 4H is a logical alternative. To me, adjusting to 4H-3 seems very clear. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 08:35:44 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:35:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Den 29. mars 2011 08:34 skrev Harald Skj?ran f?lgende: > 2011/3/29 Lali : >> N? - E? -? S? -? W >> >> 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D >> 3H? -? P? - 3S? - P >> 4H -? P? - 4S? - P >> P? -?? P >> >> 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall >> no alerts >> result 4S -1 >> N/S have Stolen bids on their cc >> >> W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no alert >> S's transfer bid and therefore there was a logical alternative for S to pass >> and not continue on to 4S.? W wanted the contract turned back to 4H going >> down 3. >> S hand was something like? K9xxx? Qx? xxx? Qx. > > I suppose the real hand was either K9xxx-Qx-xxx-Qxx or K9xxx-Qx-xxxx-Qx > 12 cards in no legal bridge hand. > >> >> Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical >> alternative for S looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 fit >> in S and possibly only a 4/2 fit in H to leave contract in 4H. >> >> E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 turned >> out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure that he was >> right in is evaluation of the situation.??E also added to his argument that >> some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so having insisted on H >> twice, she could have had that type of hand and passing 4H was a logical >> alternative. >> >> I am posting this to see what other people think. > > North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > 4H would then be a far better contract than 4S, eventhough none would > be a great game to bid. > And north might have two small spades. > I agree that passing 4H is a logical alternative. To me, adjusting to > 4H-3 seems very clear. Or rather, to adjust to 3H-2. Bidding 3S would not be allowed. >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From lali808 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 08:58:13 2011 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:58:13 -1000 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I guess I lost a card in the retelling.... sorry. Thanks all for comments! Newbie here trying to understand directing better. 2011/3/28 Harald Skj?ran > Den 29. mars 2011 08:34 skrev Harald Skj?ran > f?lgende: > > 2011/3/29 Lali : > >> N - E - S - W > >> > >> 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D > >> 3H - P - 3S - P > >> 4H - P - 4S - P > >> P - P > >> > >> 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall > >> no alerts > >> result 4S -1 > >> N/S have Stolen bids on their cc > >> > >> W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no > alert > >> S's transfer bid and therefore there was a logical alternative for S to > pass > >> and not continue on to 4S. W wanted the contract turned back to 4H > going > >> down 3. > >> S hand was something like K9xxx Qx xxx Qx. > > > > I suppose the real hand was either K9xxx-Qx-xxx-Qxx or K9xxx-Qx-xxxx-Qx > > 12 cards in no legal bridge hand. > > > >> > >> Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical > >> alternative for S looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 > fit > >> in S and possibly only a 4/2 fit in H to leave contract in 4H. > >> > >> E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 > turned > >> out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure that he > was > >> right in is evaluation of the situation. E also added to his argument > that > >> some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so having insisted on H > >> twice, she could have had that type of hand and passing 4H was a logical > >> alternative. > >> > >> I am posting this to see what other people think. > > > > North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > > 4H would then be a far better contract than 4S, eventhough none would > > be a great game to bid. > > And north might have two small spades. > > I agree that passing 4H is a logical alternative. To me, adjusting to > > 4H-3 seems very clear. > > Or rather, to adjust to 3H-2. Bidding 3S would not be allowed. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Blml mailing list > >> Blml at rtflb.org > >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Harald Skj?ran > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110329/9e78dc82/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Mar 29 09:08:30 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:08:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75C50819-156A-4499-A001-38DEEB70CDF5@btinternet.com> On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's too late now because partner won't understand that. Gordon Rainsford From lali808 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 09:19:29 2011 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:19:29 -1000 Subject: [BLML] Louisville Nationals ruling Message-ID: I was wondering if someone could explain this ruling to me please. W N E S P P 1S P 2C* 2D 2S P P 3D P P P 2C was asked about and alerted as Reverse Drury and was on cc but never looked at by director. contract 3D - 4 Director was called at the end of the round. Ruling was adjusted to 3S -1 W forgot Drury and had C suit and 11 hcp. E had a minimal opener for 3rd seat. S broke badly with W having only a stiff. 3NT and 5C could be made but those contracts were never attempted. Isn't this a case of misbid vs mistaken explanation? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110329/fed78955/attachment.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Tue Mar 29 10:05:21 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:05:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Louisville Nationals ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6AA5FB4A-520B-4F1B-BD6B-49F66703FA69@btinternet.com> On 29 Mar 2011, at 08:19, Lali wrote: > I was wondering if someone could explain this ruling to me please. It's hard without knowing the basis of the ruling, but the one thing I can think of that would make sense is if West had a spade fit as well as a club suit. Then West's failure to raise 2S might be judged to be based on the UI from the alert of 2C. Failing that it's hard to see how the director can impose a 3S bid that wasn't made at the table (unless the director belongs to Sven's school, and believes one should adjust as though the player in question had not forgotten their agreements). Gordon Rainsford > > > W N E S > P P 1S P > 2C* 2D 2S P > P 3D P P > P > > 2C was asked about and alerted as Reverse Drury and was on cc but > never looked at by director. > contract 3D - 4 > > Director was called at the end of the round. Ruling was adjusted > to 3S -1 > > W forgot Drury and had C suit and 11 hcp. E had a minimal opener > for 3rd seat. S broke badly with W having only a stiff. > 3NT and 5C could be made but those contracts were never attempted. > > Isn't this a case of misbid vs mistaken explanation? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 29 10:07:18 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:07:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D919336.7010207@skynet.be> Lali wrote: > N - E - S - W > > 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D > 3H - P - 3S - P > 4H - P - 4S - P > P - P > > 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall > no alerts > result 4S -1 > N/S have Stolen bids on their cc > > W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no > alert S's transfer bid and therefore there was a logical alternative for > S to pass and not continue on to 4S. W wanted the contract turned back > to 4H going down 3. > S hand was something like K9xxx Qx xxx Qx. > > Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical > alternative for S looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 > fit in S and possibly only a 4/2 fit in H to leave contract in 4H. > > E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 > turned out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure > that he was right in is evaluation of the situation. E also added to > his argument that some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so > having insisted on H twice, she could have had that type of hand and > passing 4H was a logical alternative. > > I am posting this to see what other people think. > One of the points to make is that South (probably) knows he is on shaky ground, and this is AI to him. It is far more likely that North has misinterpreted 2H than than North has the hand described by opponent. I allow 4S. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3536 - Release Date: 03/28/11 20:34:00 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From blml at arcor.de Tue Mar 29 10:26:52 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:26:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Louisville Nationals ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <259928742.150501.1301387212801.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> Lali wrote: > I was wondering if someone could explain this ruling to me please. > > > W N E S > P P 1S P > 2C* 2D 2S P > P 3D P P > P > > 2C was asked about and alerted as Reverse Drury and was on cc but never > looked at by director. > contract 3D - 4 > > Director was called at the end of the round. Ruling was adjusted to 3S -1 > > W forgot Drury and had C suit and 11 hcp. E had a minimal opener for 3rd > seat. S broke badly with W having only a stiff. > 3NT and 5C could be made but those contracts were never attempted. > > Isn't this a case of misbid vs mistaken explanation? When considering MI, you also always have to consider UI. In the above hand, W has UI from the unexpected alert of 2C. That UI tells him that his partner's 2S bid is based upon a presumed 2C Reserve Drury bid, rather than a natural 2S bid showing six spades and possibly a little bit more than a bare minimum. The TD would have to dig a bit deeper to identify the exact meaning of the 2S call in W's version of the system. W then, of course, must not use any logical alternative demonstrably suggested over another LA by the UI. Say, if W has a doubleton spade, bidding 3S or even 4S might easily an LA (remember that in W's version of the system E pretty much guaranteed six spades). Thomas From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 29 11:49:38 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:49:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Louisville Nationals ruling In-Reply-To: <6AA5FB4A-520B-4F1B-BD6B-49F66703FA69@btinternet.com> References: <6AA5FB4A-520B-4F1B-BD6B-49F66703FA69@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <001b01cbedf6$9f586820$de093860$@no> On Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > On 29 Mar 2011, at 08:19, Lali wrote: > > > I was wondering if someone could explain this ruling to me please. > > It's hard without knowing the basis of the ruling, but the one thing > I can think of that would make sense is if West had a spade fit as > well as a club suit. Then West's failure to raise 2S might be judged > to be based on the UI from the alert of 2C. > > Failing that it's hard to see how the director can impose a 3S bid > that wasn't made at the table (unless the director belongs to Sven's > school, and believes one should adjust as though the player in > question had not forgotten their agreements). > > Gordon Rainsford > As I am dragged into this I shall comment: There has definitely been no misinformation during this auction so the only legal cause for adjustment is if either East or West (or both) are deemed to having violated law 16B by selecting action(s) suggested from UI when other logical alternatives exist. I don't see that East has received any UI so we must concentrate on West only: West has UI from the (unexpected) alert and explanation of his 2C bid. Could his pass in the next round of the auction be suggested by this UI? Apparently yes. But is 3C a logical alternative when West is unaware that he had forgotten agreements? Hard to tell without knowing his cards. If we rule that 3C is not a logical alternative in this situation then that is the end of story. Now we have to assess what would have happened if we rule that 3C indeed is a logical alternative for West and assume that West without UI consequently had bid 3C rather than passing. We must consider the possibilities both if North passes 3C and if he bids 3D (as he did now, but over 2S). And for each of these possibilities we must consider the possibilities that East then passes or bids 3S. TD apparently found that bidding 3C was a logical alternative for West and ruled that East would eventually have "corrected" to 3S. I don't know what the 3C bid implies in a Drury auction, but with East's knowledge that West has support for spades I find the correction to 3S reasonable unless 3C is an "impossible" bid revealing that a wheel must have come off during the auction. Regards Sven > > > > > > W N E S > > P P 1S P > > 2C* 2D 2S P > > P 3D P P > > P > > > > 2C was asked about and alerted as Reverse Drury and was on cc but > > never looked at by director. > > contract 3D - 4 > > > > Director was called at the end of the round. Ruling was adjusted > > to 3S -1 > > > > W forgot Drury and had C suit and 11 hcp. E had a minimal opener > > for 3rd seat. S broke badly with W having only a stiff. > > 3NT and 5C could be made but those contracts were never attempted. > > > > Isn't this a case of misbid vs mistaken explanation? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 29 12:52:38 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:52:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D91B9F6.6010102@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/03/2011 6:01, Lali a ?crit : > N - E - S - W > > 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D > 3H - P - 3S - P > 4H - P - 4S - P > P - P > > 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall > no alerts > result 4S -1 > N/S have Stolen bids on their cc > > W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no > alert S's transfer bid and therefore there was a logical alternative > for S to pass and not continue on to 4S. W wanted the contract turned > back to 4H going down 3. > S hand was something like K9xxx Qx xxx Qx. > > Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a > logical alternative for S looking at her hand knowing they have at > least a 5/2 fit in S and possibly only a 4/2 fit in H to leave > contract in 4H. > > E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 > turned out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure > that he was right in is evaluation of the situation. E also added to > his argument that some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so > having insisted on H twice, she could have had that type of hand and > passing 4H was a logical alternative. > > I am posting this to see what other people think. AG : if North alerts, explains as Transfer, and then bids 3H and 4H, wouldn't South consider that North has an exceptional hand for spades ? Something like QTxxx-AKJ-Ax-Kxx. In which case, it would be silly to drop partner in 4H, unless he is accustomed to open 1NT with 1723 pattern. Whence 4S is obvious. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 29 13:22:23 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:22:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D91C0EE.2070001@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/03/2011 8:34, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2011/3/29 Lali: >> N - E - S - W >> >> 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D >> 3H - P - 3S - P >> 4H - P - 4S - P >> P - P >> >> 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall >> no alerts >> result 4S -1 >> N/S have Stolen bids on their cc >> >> W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no alert >> S's transfer bid and therefore there was a logical alternative for S to pass >> and not continue on to 4S. W wanted the contract turned back to 4H going >> down 3. >> S hand was something like K9xxx Qx xxx Qx. > I suppose the real hand was either K9xxx-Qx-xxx-Qxx or K9xxx-Qx-xxxx-Qx > 12 cards in no legal bridge hand. > >> Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical >> alternative for S looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 fit >> in S and possibly only a 4/2 fit in H to leave contract in 4H. >> >> E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 turned >> out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure that he was >> right in is evaluation of the situation. E also added to his argument that >> some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so having insisted on H >> twice, she could have had that type of hand and passing 4H was a logical >> alternative. >> >> I am posting this to see what other people think. > North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > 4H would then be a far better contract than 4S, eventhough none would > be a great game to bid. > And north might have two small spades. > Except, of course, that with such a hand, North wouldn't have bid 3H over a Transfer 2H. Whence playing him for such a hand is using UI that he didn't understand. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 13:28:25 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:28:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D91C259.7030303@gmail.com> On 03/29/2011 12:01 AM, Lali wrote: > > E, who is a lawyer, eventually dropped the appeal because the +100 > turned out to be a good score for them but said he was still 100% sure > that he was right in is evaluation of the situation. E also added to > his argument that some NT bidders open with stiffs and 5cd majors so > having insisted on H twice, she could have had that type of hand and > passing 4H was a logical alternative. > Others have addressed the question of a score adjustment - but I think the point should be made to East, more or less gently depending on his experience, that it's NOT up to him to impose his ideas of standard bidding methods on his opponents. What mattered is what N-S were playing, not what E thought they MIGHT be playing. I don't claim to be an expert player, or anything close to it. I do claim to know players, including myself, who wouldn't so much as consider opening 1NT with a major suit singleton, and maybe even one or two who still wouldn't open 1NT with a strong 5-card major. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 29 16:29:22 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:29:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: <75C50819-156A-4499-A001-38DEEB70CDF5@btinternet.com> References: <75C50819-156A-4499-A001-38DEEB70CDF5@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Mar 29, 2011, at 3:08 AM, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > > I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which > ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. > Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be > changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's > too late now because partner won't understand that. I think Gordon is right here. S's 2H bid is quite likely to be merely trying to compete to 2S. A new suit by N is a descriptive call showing a willingness to continue in *spades* even if S was trying to sign off -- N will always pass 3D with a misfit -- analogous to 1NT-P-2H-P-3H-; S is expected to bid either 3S or 4S. N's subsequent 4H may then be systemically impossible, but shouldn't be presumed to cancel the message conveyed by 3H. I would allow 4S to stand, because I don't see how S would (or should) have bid any differently had N alerted 2H and explained it as showing spades. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Tue Mar 29 16:50:03 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:50:03 -0700 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:08:30 BST." <75C50819-156A-4499-A001-38DEEB70CDF5@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <20110329145003.DC130A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon wrote: > On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj=E6ran wrote: > > > > North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > > I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which > ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. > Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be > changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's > too late now because partner won't understand that. Normally, I'd agree with you, Alain, and Eric---3H has to show a spade fit. However, I noticed from the original post that N-S play "Stolen Bids", a convention that IMHO is mostly played by lower-intermediate players who haven't done a lot of reading, so just based on that I have to ask whether the idea that 3H shows a great hand for spades is too subtle for this pair. In any case, the director will have to use his knowledge of the players, or ask questions, to determine whether this pair is one for whom 3H would show a spade fit or a hand like Harald's. We can't really give an accurate ruling without that knowledge. -- Adam From wrgptfan at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 21:28:55 2011 From: wrgptfan at gmail.com (David Kent) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:28:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: <75C50819-156A-4499-A001-38DEEB70CDF5@btinternet.com> References: <75C50819-156A-4499-A001-38DEEB70CDF5@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Thank you. Finally a voice of reason. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2011, at 3:08, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> >> North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > > I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which > ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. > Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be > changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's > too late now because partner won't understand that. > > Gordon Rainsford > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From lali808 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 22:11:52 2011 From: lali808 at gmail.com (Lali) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:11:52 -1000 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: <75C50819-156A-4499-A001-38DEEB70CDF5@btinternet.com> Message-ID: N/S were an intermediate pair... older ladies who have played for years but would never understand anything as sophisticated as bidding another suit to show a good fit plus type of bid. E/W were top A players. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:28 AM, David Kent wrote: > Thank you. Finally a voice of reason. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 29, 2011, at 3:08, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > > > > > On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> > >> North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > > > > I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which > > ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. > > Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be > > changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's > > too late now because partner won't understand that. > > > > Gordon Rainsford > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110329/4f894b2f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 30 00:46:36 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:46:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D91C259.7030303@gmail.com> Message-ID: Betty Grable (1916 - 1973), American actress: "There are two reasons why I'm in show business, and I'm standing on both of them." Brian Meadows: >Others have addressed the question of a score adjustment - but I think >the point should be made to East, more or less gently depending on his >experience, that it's NOT up to him to impose his ideas of standard >bidding methods on his opponents. What mattered is what N-S were >playing, not what E thought they MIGHT be playing. > >I don't claim to be an expert player, or anything close to it. I do >claim to know players, including myself, who wouldn't so much as >consider opening 1NT with a major suit singleton, and maybe even one or >two who still wouldn't open 1NT with a strong 5-card major. Richard Hills: Some supercilious semi-expert Standard players claim that it must be mandatory to open a balanced 15-17 1NT when holding a 5-card major, as that solves potential rebid problems. The late Edgar Kaplan, a real expert, stood on two reasons for eschewing this Ivory Tower practice. The first reason was that Edgar Kaplan did not like opening 1NT with a 5-card spade suit and then scoring +120 in 1NT instead of +620 in 4S. The second reason was that Edgar Kaplan did not like opening 1NT with a 5-card heart suit and then scoring +120 in 1NT instead of +620 in 4H. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Mar 30 02:06:51 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:06:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75F9441AAD8347AABE0B05206E349981@erdos> Lali writes: >N - E - S - W >1NT - 2D - 2H -3D >3H - P - 3S - P >4H - P - 4S - P >P - P >15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall >no alerts >result 4S -1 >N/S have Stolen bids on their cc >W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no alert S's >transfer bid >and therefore there was a logical alternative for S to pass and not continue on >to 4S. W >wanted the contract turned back to 4H going down 3. >S hand was something like K9xxx Qx xxx Qx. (presumably one more club) >Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical >alternative for S >looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 fit in S and possibly only >a 4/2 fit in >H to leave contract in 4H. What needs to be considered is what the UI suggested. If N-S don't understand the idea of bidding another suit as a game try, then 3H is an impossible bid, so even without the UI, South knows that either there is a misunderstanding or partner pulled the wrong card, and in either case, South would bid 3S. If N-S do understand, or could guess, then South should take 3H as some type of game try. If 3H shows spade support with heart values (something like AJxx Axxx xx AKx), then 4S is a LA to 3S, but pass is not. Bidding 3S is thus an infraction, but North would pass 4S to get the same result. If 3H shows a doubleton heart by agreement (which is unlikely on the bidding), then there is no LA to 3S. And in any case, once North bids 4H, South knows this is an impossible bid. South signed off in 3S, which could have shown a Yarborough with five spades, so there is no way North can have a game force. Thus South has no LA to the 4S correction, since 4S has to be at least as good a contract as 4H. Thus I let the score stand. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 30 04:50:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:50:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <75F9441AAD8347AABE0B05206E349981@erdos> Message-ID: Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (1872): "Why, sometimes I've believed in as many as six impossible things before breakfast." David Grabiner: >..... >If N-S don't understand the idea of bidding another suit as >a game try, then 3H is an impossible bid >..... >Thus I let the score stand. Richard Hills: No bidding sequence is impossible. Alain Gottcheiner gave the example of WEST EAST 1NT 2H (transfer to spades) 5D which is entirely possible if West initially sorted her cards as a 2=4=4=3 shape, but upon later inspection West realised that she held a 2=0=8=3 shape. So in the stem case auction where we reach this hypothetical authorised information point WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT 2D 2H (explained as transfer) 3D 3H Pass ? it is entirely possible from South's _authorised_ point of view that her partner missorted her hand and so North is bidding 3H to play (given that North-South are bunnies who do not use advance long suit trials to show excellent spade support). Of course, in actuality South had UI from North's failure to alert that a missort of cards was less probable than a mistake of system. Thus I do not let the table score of 4S -100 stand unless there is no damage (i.e. if an adjustment to the legal contract of 3H would be a score of +140 or better). Best wishes Humpty Dumpty -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 30 05:09:19 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:09:19 +1100 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: >>..... >>Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be >>changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but >>it's too late now because partner won't understand that. David Kent: >Thank you. Finally a voice of reason. Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." Richard Hills: A logical alternative is a Humpty Dumpty misnomer, as an LA need be neither logical nor follow the voice of reason. We all well know that there are "classes of players" out there who frequently perpetrate illogical atrocities, for example violating captaincy by preempting a second time, and who frequently change horses mid-race. Such atrocious players should not arbitrarily be assigned subtle winning actions (and in a different context, for example the famous Law 12 "serious error", such atrocious players should not arbitrarily be derogated for subtle losing actions). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 30 14:53:28 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:53:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: <20110329145003.DC130A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110329145003.DC130A8C87E@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D9327C8.2010606@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/03/2011 16:50, Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > Gordon wrote: > >> On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj=E6ran wrote: >>> North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx >> I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which >> ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. >> Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be >> changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's >> too late now because partner won't understand that. > Normally, I'd agree with you, Alain, and Eric---3H has to show a spade > fit. However, I noticed from the original post that N-S play "Stolen > Bids", a convention that IMHO is mostly played by lower-intermediate > players AG : I don't know what to think about this assessment ; most fine-tuned relay systems do use them. In Lille, most players, including very good ones, would use Double as a transfer to hearts and 2H as a transfer to spades in this situation. And what about responses over BW ? Now, you don't need a great mind to consider that, if 2H means the same as without interference, developements will mean the same. This might even be a meta-agreement. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 30 14:57:18 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:57:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: <75F9441AAD8347AABE0B05206E349981@erdos> References: <75F9441AAD8347AABE0B05206E349981@erdos> Message-ID: <4D9328AE.5000502@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/03/2011 2:06, David Grabiner a ?crit : > Lali writes: > >> N - E - S - W >> 1NT - 2D - 2H -3D >> 3H - P - 3S - P >> 4H - P - 4S - P >> P - P >> 15-17 NT, 2D natural overcall >> no alerts >> result 4S -1 >> N/S have Stolen bids on their cc >> W called director and claimed that 4S was suggested by the UI of no alert S's >> transfer bid >> and therefore there was a logical alternative for S to pass and not continue on >> to 4S. W >> wanted the contract turned back to 4H going down 3. >> S hand was something like K9xxx Qx xxx Qx. > (presumably one more club) > >> Director in charge ruled that the 4S stood because it was NOT a logical >> alternative for S >> looking at her hand knowing they have at least a 5/2 fit in S and possibly only >> a 4/2 fit in >> H to leave contract in 4H. > What needs to be considered is what the UI suggested. If N-S don't understand > the idea of bidding another suit as a game try, then 3H is an impossible bid, so > even without the UI, South knows that either there is a misunderstanding or > partner pulled the wrong card, and in either case, South would bid 3S. > > If N-S do understand, or could guess, then South should take 3H as some type of > game try. If 3H shows spade support with heart values (something like AJxx Axxx > xx AKx), then 4S is a LA to 3S, but pass is not. AG : bidding a FNJ with Axxx is atrocious. I would hold AJxx - AQJx - xx - Axx. But this doesn't change the reasoning. > And in any case, once North bids 4H, South knows this is an impossible bid. > South signed off in 3S, which could have shown a Yarborough with five spades Not really as she could have passed, but that makes the 4H bid more plausible as a fit-showing bid in a way. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 30 14:59:14 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:59:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D932922.9000406@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/03/2011 4:50, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (1872): > > "Why, sometimes I've believed in as many as six impossible > things before breakfast." > > David Grabiner: > >> ..... >> If N-S don't understand the idea of bidding another suit as >> a game try, then 3H is an impossible bid >> ..... >> Thus I let the score stand. > Richard Hills: > > No bidding sequence is impossible. Alain Gottcheiner gave > the example of > > WEST EAST > 1NT 2H (transfer to spades) > 5D > > which is entirely possible if West initially sorted her > cards as a 2=4=4=3 shape, but upon later inspection West > realised that she held a 2=0=8=3 shape. AG : well, that's wat i meant by "impossible" : to understand it, you have to go out of the system and guess. In the system it is impossible. From adam at irvine.com Wed Mar 30 17:08:39 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:08:39 -0700 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:53:28 +0200." <4D9327C8.2010606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <20110330150840.A25C0A8C837@mailhub.irvine.com> > Le 29/03/2011 16:50, Adam Beneschan a écrit : > > Gordon wrote: > > > >> On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj=E6ran wrote: > >>> North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx > >> I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which > >> ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. > >> Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be > >> changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's > >> too late now because partner won't understand that. > > Normally, I'd agree with you, Alain, and Eric---3H has to show a spade > > fit. However, I noticed from the original post that N-S play "Stolen > > Bids", a convention that IMHO is mostly played by lower-intermediate > > players > AG : I don't know what to think about this assessment ; most fine-tuned > relay systems do use them. In Lille, most players, including very good > ones, would use Double as a transfer to hearts and 2H as a transfer to > spades in this situation. And what about responses over BW ? Now, you > don't need a great mind to consider that, if 2H means the same as > without interference, developements will mean the same. This might even > be a meta-agreement. I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. It's just based on my experience at the table, here in Southern California, and on books on bidding I've read by American experts. I understand that standard practices in Belgium and France may be different, and I realize that I don't actually know where the original poster's scenario took place. So my assessment was just a guess. But a correct guess, as it turned out. -- Adam From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 30 17:29:52 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:29:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] logical from whose point of view In-Reply-To: <20110330150840.A25C0A8C837@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <20110330150840.A25C0A8C837@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <4D934C70.50705@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/03/2011 17:08, Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > >> Le 29/03/2011 16:50, Adam Beneschan a ?crit : >>> Gordon wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Mar 2011, at 07:34, Harald Skj=E6ran wrote: >>>>> North might easily have Ax-AKJxx-xxx-Kxx >>>> I can't imagine a player with such a hand bidding 3H over 3D, which >>>> ought to show a spade fit. I'd expect him to pass at this point. >>>> Bidding 3H to show hearts without a spade fit seems to me to be >>>> changing horses mid-race, and wishing he hadn't opened 1NT - but it's >>>> too late now because partner won't understand that. >>> Normally, I'd agree with you, Alain, and Eric---3H has to show a spade >>> fit. However, I noticed from the original post that N-S play "Stolen >>> Bids", a convention that IMHO is mostly played by lower-intermediate >>> players >> AG : I don't know what to think about this assessment ; most fine-tuned >> relay systems do use them. In Lille, most players, including very good >> ones, would use Double as a transfer to hearts and 2H as a transfer to >> spades in this situation. And what about responses over BW ? Now, you >> don't need a great mind to consider that, if 2H means the same as >> without interference, developements will mean the same. This might even >> be a meta-agreement. > I certainly didn't intend to insult anyone. It's just based on my > experience at the table, here in Southern California, and on books on > bidding I've read by American experts. I understand that standard > practices in Belgium and France may be different, and I realize that I > don't actually know where the original poster's scenario took place. > So my assessment was just a guess. > > But a correct guess, as it turned out. AG : point taken. However, I knew all about neapolitan, alpha, beta, omega, roman and several other artificial systems before I ever heard about the Bath coup, and I know some other system freaks who didn't either, whence I'm wary of assessing the possibility of using some sophisticated gadget on the basis of a player's talent and global results. And above all I'm not at all at ease with the idea of any ruling, however logical, that would penalize a player because he knows less about the game. Best regards Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 30 23:42:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:42:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner, 31st March 2011: >>...I knew all about neapolitan, alpha, beta, omega, roman and >>several other artificial systems before I ever heard about the >>Bath coup, and I know some other system freaks who didn't >>either... David Burn, 20th December 2008 (responding to earlier AG post): >...The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws >of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge >players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of >double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is >anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the >interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should >not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else. Richard Hills, 31st March 2011: Yes, in my experience systems freaks who play 25 different kinds of double, but who do not know the Bath Coup, are merely quasi- experts who unfairly gain their tops by baffling bunnies with unfamiliar auctions and unalerted doubles. If a blml lurker would like to reach the greater height of semi- expert I would recommend reading and rereading the book Card Play Technique by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo (gaining a feel for declarer and defensive techniques) and then playing a skeletal Standard or Acol system for a few years (gaining a feel for hand evaluation and competitive bidding). Only after those basics are in place should the next step of semi-sophisticated but non-freaky methods be adopted (my non-freaky Symmetric Relay system notes will be emailed on request). Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 03:44:30 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 20:44:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > > > If a blml lurker would like to reach the greater height of semi- > expert I would recommend reading and rereading the book Card > Play Technique by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo (gaining a feel > for declarer and defensive techniques) and then playing a > skeletal Standard or Acol system for a few years (gaining a feel > for hand evaluation and competitive bidding). This is old hat. I have heard this over and over for more than a decade. It is the usual advice: You should voluntarily apprentice yourself to a poor method for a few years---using a bunch of boring, poorly thought out, ordinary stuff, and maybe after waiting a few years, you can win something worthwhile. I recommend the complete opposite for most of my students. I have helped several total beginners win right away with unusual bidding methods. A complete beginner can win large club events with greatly superior methods, even without great card-playing technique. Anyway, that is what I teach, because I want my students to win right away. Standard methods are sometimes quite poor. There is no reason that you must always play the most boring stuff possible, in my opinion. Learn some great bidding methods, and you may well be able to scratch immediately. The conventional wisdom is best ignored when it is wrong. This common idea, which Richard endorsed, that you must wait two years before you get to do something interesting and start a habit of winning---How absurd! Bridge is a game. Do you want to win right away, or not? Do you want to use HCP, or something vastly better? How do you want to win---through superior card play or superior bidding? I think that it usually easier to improve your bidding. Some players want to win quickly through superior bidding. It is not the only way, admittedly, but it is a viable option. Why does the convention wisdom, like what Richard stated, denigrate this option? Let the player choose what he wants. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110331/0bbbadbf/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 31 05:34:21 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:34:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul O'Neill (US Treasury Secretary 2001-2003) describing George W Bush (US President 2001-2009) in cabinet meetings: "Like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." Richard Hills: >>..... >>If a blml lurker would like to reach the greater height of semi- >>expert I would recommend reading and rereading the book Card >>Play Technique by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo (gaining a feel >>for declarer and defensive techniques) and then playing a >>skeletal Standard or Acol system for a few years (gaining a feel >>for hand evaluation and competitive bidding). >>..... Jerry Fusselman: >This is old hat. ?I have heard this over and over for more than a >decade. It is the usual advice: ?You should voluntarily >apprentice yourself to a poor method for a few years---using a >bunch of boring, poorly thought out, ordinary stuff, and maybe >after waiting a few years, you can win something worthwhile. Richard Hills: This thread is perhaps tangential to normal blml concerns; except that exciting new stuff is almost always poorly thought out, easily forgotten, and hence generates numerous MI and UI problems for the Director to solve. And while the Acol of Acol Road may have been partially poorly thought out in the 1930s, extensive thinking about the system over the past seventy-odd years means that a skeletal 2011 version of Acol is now well thought out. Jerry Fusselman: >This common idea, which Richard endorsed, that you must wait two >years before you get to do something interesting and start a >habit of winning---How absurd! Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. Winning is not the be all and end all. The question is whether Jerry's students win without using UI to cope with ambiguities and forgettery of their freakishly complex conventions. Konrad Ciborowski, 16th October 2007: >>>..... >>>The amount of non-verbal information transmitted in bridge is >>>big, especially at the lower levels. >>> >>>When they introduced screens in the Polish Third Division the >>>effect was unbelievable - suddenly bids asking for kings started >>>becoming final contracts. And in 99% of cases these were pairs >>>everybody considers clean. >>> >>>I've played in clubs in Paris, Helsinki & Denver. And I have seen >>>this phenomenon frequently. >>> >>>And we both know that it happens all the time - and also that it >>>is very hard to detect. >>> >>>That's why we use screens. Not to prevent cheaters like Buratti - >>>Lanzarotti or Facchini - Zucchelli because it is almost just as >>>easy to cheat with sceens and without them. >>>..... Jerry Fusselman: >Bridge is a game. ?Do you want to win right away, or not? ?Do you >want to use HCP, or something vastly better? Richard Hills: Playing a skeletal Acol system does not prevent the flawed Milton Work points from being supplemented with the Losing Trick Count and Points-Schmoints. Indeed a founding principle of Acol was and is, "Bid what you think you can make." Jerry Fusselman: >How do you want to win---through superior card play or superior >bidding? ?I think that it usually easier to improve your bidding. > >Some players want to win quickly through superior bidding. ?It is >not the only way, admittedly, but it is a viable option. ?Why does >the convention wisdom, like what Richard stated, denigrate this >option? ?Let the player choose what he wants. Euclid addressing King Ptolemy: "There is no 'royal road' to geometry." Richard Hills: There is no "royal road" to bridge success. A bunny may win versus other bunnies by baffling those opponents with unsound freaky conventions indoctrinated in her by an idiosyncratic teacher. But for that bunny to progress to the next level of semi-expert, she will have to unlearn those exciting but unsound conventions and now adopt sound and boring conventions. As I recall, the German political theorist Max Weber said something like, "Winning at politics is slow boring through hard boards." The same rule applies at bridge; in the long run against credible opponents boring methods outscore interesting methods. The methods of Ali-Hills boringly contain only two types of doubles, takeout and penalty. But the absence of the interesting Snapdragon Double from our methods has not prevented us repeatedly scoring up boring victories versus other semi-experts. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Mar 31 05:50:37 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:50:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201103310351.p2V3p3Fl014021@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:34 PM 31/03/2011, you wrote: >Paul O'Neill (US Treasury Secretary 2001-2003) describing George W >Bush (US President 2001-2009) in cabinet meetings: > >"Like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." > >Richard Hills: > > >>..... > >>If a blml lurker would like to reach the greater height of semi- > >>expert I would recommend reading and rereading the book Card > >>Play Technique by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo (gaining a feel > >>for declarer and defensive techniques) and then playing a > >>skeletal Standard or Acol system for a few years (gaining a feel > >>for hand evaluation and competitive bidding). > >>..... > >Jerry Fusselman: > > >This is old hat. I have heard this over and over for more than a > >decade. It is the usual advice: You should voluntarily > >apprentice yourself to a poor method for a few years---using a > >bunch of boring, poorly thought out, ordinary stuff, and maybe > >after waiting a few years, you can win something worthwhile. > >Richard Hills: > >This thread is perhaps tangential to normal blml concerns; >except that exciting new stuff is almost always poorly thought >out, easily forgotten, and hence generates numerous MI and UI >problems for the Director to solve. > >And while the Acol of Acol Road may have been partially poorly >thought out in the 1930s, extensive thinking about the system over >the past seventy-odd years means that a skeletal 2011 version of >Acol is now well thought out. > >Jerry Fusselman: > > >This common idea, which Richard endorsed, that you must wait two > >years before you get to do something interesting and start a > >habit of winning---How absurd! > >Richard Hills: > >Begging the question, petitio principii. Winning is not the be all >and end all. The question is whether Jerry's students win without >using UI to cope with ambiguities and forgettery of their freakishly >complex conventions. > >Konrad Ciborowski, 16th October 2007: > > >>>..... > >>>The amount of non-verbal information transmitted in bridge is > >>>big, especially at the lower levels. > >>> > >>>When they introduced screens in the Polish Third Division the > >>>effect was unbelievable - suddenly bids asking for kings started > >>>becoming final contracts. And in 99% of cases these were pairs > >>>everybody considers clean. > >>> > >>>I've played in clubs in Paris, Helsinki & Denver. And I have seen > >>>this phenomenon frequently. > >>> > >>>And we both know that it happens all the time - and also that it > >>>is very hard to detect. > >>> > >>>That's why we use screens. Not to prevent cheaters like Buratti - > >>>Lanzarotti or Facchini - Zucchelli because it is almost just as > >>>easy to cheat with sceens and without them. > >>>..... > >Jerry Fusselman: > > >Bridge is a game. Do you want to win right away, or not? Do you > >want to use HCP, or something vastly better? > >Richard Hills: > >Playing a skeletal Acol system does not prevent the flawed Milton >Work points from being supplemented with the Losing Trick Count and >Points-Schmoints. Indeed a founding principle of Acol was and is, >"Bid what you think you can make." > >Jerry Fusselman: > > >How do you want to win---through superior card play or superior > >bidding? I think that it usually easier to improve your bidding. > > > >Some players want to win quickly through superior bidding. It is > >not the only way, admittedly, but it is a viable option. Why does > >the convention wisdom, like what Richard stated, denigrate this > >option? Let the player choose what he wants. > >Euclid addressing King Ptolemy: > >"There is no 'royal road' to geometry." > >Richard Hills: > >There is no "royal road" to bridge success. A bunny may win versus >other bunnies by baffling those opponents with unsound freaky >conventions indoctrinated in her by an idiosyncratic teacher. But >for that bunny to progress to the next level of semi-expert, she >will have to unlearn those exciting but unsound conventions and now >adopt sound and boring conventions. > >As I recall, the German political theorist Max Weber said something >like, "Winning at politics is slow boring through hard boards." The >same rule applies at bridge; in the long run against credible >opponents boring methods outscore interesting methods. > >The methods of Ali-Hills boringly contain only two types of doubles, >takeout and penalty. But the absence of the interesting Snapdragon >Double from our methods has not prevented us repeatedly scoring up >boring victories versus other semi-experts. As you say somewhat tangential. I taught bridge for over 10 years. Simple 4 card majors, but I tried to teach how to play cards (limited success). As a director I have spent many enjoyable hours watching beginners with CCs as long as your arm who have no table feel, no card sense etc. I learnt by reading Mollo and Gardner and if they want to win, at least try reading this tome first. Cheers Tony (Sydney) From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 10:56:24 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:56:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <201103310351.p2V3p3Fl014021@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <201103310351.p2V3p3Fl014021@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4D9441B8.8040400@gmail.com> On 03/30/2011 11:50 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > As you say somewhat tangential. I taught bridge for over 10 > years. Simple 4 card majors, but I tried to teach how to > play cards (limited success). As a director I have spent many > enjoyable hours watching beginners with CCs as long as your > arm who have no table feel, no card sense etc. I learnt by > reading Mollo and Gardner and if they want to win, at least > try reading this tome first. > While I don't claim extensive experience as a teacher, my statistically insignificant experience is that I got novices to pick up the basics of bidding more quickly by using simple Precision rather than simple Acol(*). It was a university club, BTW, and offering both courses was an established precedent, not my idea. I've absolutely no disagreement with the idea that basic card play should precede advanced conventions. I just question whether prehistoric Acol should be seen as a necessary starting point. Conventions *which make learning easier* are no bad thing. Brian. (*) To the best of my recollection, 35 years on, the Acol book used was Cohen and Lederer's "All About Acol". I know that the Precision book used was Reese's "Precision Bidding and Precision Play", a slightly-tweaked writeup of the basic Blue Team Precision system, but we moved using the asking bids into a separate course. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 31 11:13:06 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:13:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/03/2011 23:42, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner, 31st March 2011: > >>> ...I knew all about neapolitan, alpha, beta, omega, roman and >>> several other artificial systems before I ever heard about the >>> Bath coup, and I know some other system freaks who didn't >>> either... > David Burn, 20th December 2008 (responding to earlier AG post): > >> ...The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws >> of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge >> players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of >> double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is >> anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the >> interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should >> not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else. > Richard Hills, 31st March 2011: > > Yes, in my experience systems freaks who play 25 different kinds > of double, but who do not know the Bath Coup, are merely quasi- > experts who unfairly gain their tops by baffling bunnies with > unfamiliar auctions and unalerted doubles. > Well, I suppose that this time you really intended to sound rude ? Now, I won't state my opinion about the local legislation which disallows alerting any doubles, or I would be the rudest. Yes, it is a serious ethical problem, being compelled by regulations to baffle opponents. If somebody has a solution to this, I'm open to it. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 31 11:20:03 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:20:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D944743.308@ulb.ac.be> Le 31/03/2011 5:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Paul O'Neill (US Treasury Secretary 2001-2003) describing George W > Bush (US President 2001-2009) in cabinet meetings: > > "Like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." > > Richard Hills: > >>> ..... >>> If a blml lurker would like to reach the greater height of semi- >>> expert I would recommend reading and rereading the book Card >>> Play Technique by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo (gaining a feel >>> for declarer and defensive techniques) and then playing a >>> skeletal Standard or Acol system for a few years (gaining a feel >>> for hand evaluation and competitive bidding). >>> ..... > Jerry Fusselman: > >> This is old hat. I have heard this over and over for more than a >> decade. It is the usual advice: You should voluntarily >> apprentice yourself to a poor method for a few years---using a >> bunch of boring, poorly thought out, ordinary stuff, and maybe >> after waiting a few years, you can win something worthwhile. > Richard Hills: > > This thread is perhaps tangential to normal blml concerns; > except that exciting new stuff AG :what abour exciting, well documented, efficient old stuff ? We're all too young to remember this, but club systems with bells and whistles are older than standard bidding (i.e. they go back to a Mr. Vanderbilt). My favorite system as a young player, and one which gave me the good results Mr. Fusselman spoke about, was Roman Club, which I learned in a book from the 50s. Poorly thought out ? No comment. > is almost always poorly thought > out, easily forgotten AG : one point for you. A player learning a strange system needs a good memory and combinatorial skills. Now, if that's his long suit, why do you deny him the right to use it ? Best regards Alain From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Mar 31 12:49:23 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:49:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> Alerting doubles: I think the real problem is which doubles to alert. In my recollection the fundamental idea was, when eliminating the alerting of doubles, (at least in the federations in which I direct or play) that the opponents could protect themselves by asking about doubles - at least if they so desired. In my experience the alerting of doubles too frequently gave UI to the partner. Not an ideal solution to the problem (eliminating the alerts) and it would appear a minority opinion, at least in blml but I am waiting to hear a better one. Ciao, JE Am 31.03.2011 11:13, schrieb Alain Gottcheiner: > Le 30/03/2011 23:42, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner, 31st March 2011: >> >>>> ...I knew all about neapolitan, alpha, beta, omega, roman and >>>> several other artificial systems before I ever heard about the >>>> Bath coup, and I know some other system freaks who didn't >>>> either... >> David Burn, 20th December 2008 (responding to earlier AG post): >> >>> ...The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws >>> of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge >>> players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of >>> double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is >>> anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the >>> interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should >>> not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else. >> Richard Hills, 31st March 2011: >> >> Yes, in my experience systems freaks who play 25 different kinds >> of double, but who do not know the Bath Coup, are merely quasi- >> experts who unfairly gain their tops by baffling bunnies with >> unfamiliar auctions and unalerted doubles. >> > Well, I suppose that this time you really intended to sound rude ? > > Now, I won't state my opinion about the local legislation which > disallows alerting any doubles, or I would be the rudest. > Yes, it is a serious ethical problem, being compelled by regulations to > baffle opponents. > If somebody has a solution to this, I'm open to it. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Thu Mar 31 13:04:44 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> References: <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <2057234169.417715.1301569484577.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Jeff Easterson > Alerting doubles: I think the real problem is which doubles to alert. > In my recollection the fundamental idea was, when eliminating the > alerting of doubles, (at least in the federations in which I direct or > play) that the opponents could protect themselves by asking about > doubles - at least if they so desired. In my experience the alerting of > doubles too frequently gave UI to the partner. > Not an ideal solution to the problem (eliminating the alerts) and it > would appear a minority opinion, at least in blml but I am waiting to > hear a better one. Ciao, JE That argumentation for not alerting doubles is unsound - for starters, it forces opponents to create UI to get the information they need. Then, by not having clear regulations, the RA contributes to the whole mess. Instead, the RA should define the meaning of the most popular doubles (and if you remember the recent disagreement on what "penalty double" means, that is no easy), and then enforce that players use that terminology when alerting doubles. Thomas From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 31 13:24:21 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:24:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2057234169.417715.1301569484577.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> <2057234169.417715.1301569484577.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <4D946465.3040300@skynet.be> Thomas Dehn wrote: > Jeff Easterson >> Alerting doubles: I think the real problem is which doubles to alert. >> In my recollection the fundamental idea was, when eliminating the >> alerting of doubles, (at least in the federations in which I direct or >> play) that the opponents could protect themselves by asking about >> doubles - at least if they so desired. In my experience the alerting of >> doubles too frequently gave UI to the partner. >> Not an ideal solution to the problem (eliminating the alerts) and it >> would appear a minority opinion, at least in blml but I am waiting to >> hear a better one. Ciao, JE > > That argumentation for not alerting doubles is unsound - for starters, it forces opponents > to create UI to get the information they need. > > Then, by not having clear regulations, the RA contributes to the whole > mess. Instead, the RA should define the meaning of the most popular doubles > (and if you remember the recent disagreement on what "penalty double" > means, that is no easy), and then enforce that players use that > terminology when alerting doubles. > Which is what we did for 10 years. And the definition was actually the one in the beginner's course: "a double is penalty when partner has already spoken or when it is on a game contract". And yet very often the players said "I don't know when to alert". At least that excuse has almost disappeared now - some 5 years after we've changed to the rule of not alerting any doubles. People still raise their eyebrows when I alert my partner's pass, though. > > Thomas -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 31 13:28:28 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:28:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> References: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> Le 31/03/2011 12:49, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Alerting doubles: I think the real problem is which doubles to alert. > In my recollection the fundamental idea was, when eliminating the > alerting of doubles, (at least in the federations in which I direct or > play) that the opponents could protect themselves by asking about > doubles - at least if they so desired. In my experience the alerting of > doubles too frequently gave UI to the partner. AG : so, penalty, optional, "points" and takeout doubles shan't be alerted, and more specific doubles (e.g. promising some suit) shall. Okay ? Now, consider this live case : N E 1C Dbl Rdbl 1H Dbl You, East, hold : AKJx - Jxxx - Axx - xx. What do you bid ? Easy : you're happy to have found a fit, and think you can't be hurt too much in 1H doubled. Okay. Now, it goes : pass 3C pass pass ? They've found their club fit, too bad for you, although you might hope to score a spade ruff for 1 down. just pass and see.Right ? Wrong ! You're cold for 3H and can make 4. Explanation : Rdbl = 5-8 HCP, (semi-)balanced (was 2245) Dbl = negative (with 4225 13-count). Problem is, nobody would have any hint that one should ask about *this* redouble. Even after a pre-alert that "we've some special doubles and redoubles". And then some will tell us that our top is undeserved. And he will be right. And we would be right too, to have followed the rule. And the rule would be perfectly logical. Why do I fell that something is rotten ? Best regards Alain From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Thu Mar 31 14:58:07 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:58:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> References: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be><4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [Nigel] For teaching beginners, Acol, Nottingham club (and spin-offs like Neapolitan and Precision) have the advantage of many of limit-bids. (in strong club systems, other opening bids are limited). When partner makes a limit-bid, you can often place the final-contract, immediately. At worst, you can quickly explore along familiar tram-lines, with a few simple standard conventions. Highly artificial systems like Roman and 2/1 require a more sophisticated superstructure. IMO, Doubles should be *announced^. In the UK, we announce many no-trump ranges, Stayman, Transfers, and Two bids. When Announcing was initially proposed, I was one of the objectors. We critics exaggerated its drawbacks and have had to eat our words. On balance, Announcing is a boon to players: if simplifies and improves disclosure, while saving time and hassle. It would be even better with printed-cards including a matrix of common explanations (e.g. "Relay", "Transfer", point-ranges) to which a player could point. Currently, Doubles cause confusion. (different kinds of confusion, depending on jurisdiction. for example, secretary birds take advantage of "No-Alert" rules by ascribing cunning nuanced meanings to them). Doubles are an obvious candidate for announcement. Of course, it would be ideal, were the WBF law-book to specify such things (an attempt to circumvent the usual tower of Babel). It is hard for players to understand law-makers' resistance to including (default) regulations in the law-book proper. Like the "laws", "regulations" are rules. A game is its rules. The rules of a game define the game. Different rules define different games. Surely, a trend to uniformity is inevitable, If Bridge aspires to become an international game, with a level playing-field. Sorry :( You pressed one of my buttons :) From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 15:38:24 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:38:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > It is hard for players to understand law-makers' resistance to including > (default) regulations in the law-book proper. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of players don't know that there is any such thing as the "Laws" They certainly don't differentiate between the Laws of Contract Bridge and local regulations, nor do I think that they have an informed opinions about the differences between the two... > -- > 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/20110331/6b773464/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 31 15:54:16 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:54:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6872D26F-95D9-487D-A6C9-EB48B2D3E4DE@starpower.net> On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > >> If a blml lurker would like to reach the greater height of semi- >> expert I would recommend reading and rereading the book Card >> Play Technique by Nico Gardener and Victor Mollo (gaining a feel >> for declarer and defensive techniques) and then playing a >> skeletal Standard or Acol system for a few years (gaining a feel >> for hand evaluation and competitive bidding). > > This is old hat. I have heard this over and over for more than a > decade. It is the usual advice: You should voluntarily apprentice > yourself to a poor method for a few years---using a bunch of > boring, poorly thought out, ordinary stuff, and maybe after waiting > a few years, you can win something worthwhile. > > I recommend the complete opposite for most of my students. I have > helped several total beginners win right away with unusual bidding > methods. A complete beginner can win large club events with > greatly superior methods, even without great card-playing technique. > > Anyway, that is what I teach, because I want my students to win > right away. Standard methods are sometimes quite poor. There is > no reason that you must always play the most boring stuff possible, > in my opinion. Learn some great bidding methods, and you may well > be able to scratch immediately. The conventional wisdom is best > ignored when it is wrong. > > This common idea, which Richard endorsed, that you must wait two > years before you get to do something interesting and start a habit > of winning---How absurd! > > Bridge is a game. Do you want to win right away, or not? Do you > want to use HCP, or something vastly better? How do you want to > win---through superior card play or superior bidding? I think that > it usually easier to improve your bidding. > > Some players want to win quickly through superior bidding. It is > not the only way, admittedly, but it is a viable option. Why does > the convention wisdom, like what Richard stated, denigrate this > option? Let the player choose what he wants. That's all well and good if Jerry's students are all planning to confine their future in bridge to playing in dedicated permanent partnerships. But what happens when one of them, as an individual, is called upon to sit down at the table with a partner who has not been brought up on Jerry's superior methods? Lacking knowledge of or any feel for the fundamental principles of the "boring" standard substrate, how is he to cope? Is Jerry training his players exclusively for play at his club? You cannot, IMO, rise to the level of an expert player lacking the ability to play a reasonable game with a comparably expert partner who is unfamiliar with your particular favorite bidding methods. And that requires, as Richard says, "gaining a feel for [the principles of] hand evaluation and competitive bidding" that go well beyond the specifics of any particular system. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Thu Mar 31 16:32:07 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:32:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be> <4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601cbefb0$6a6b71a0$3f4254e0$@com> Richard Willey writes: I'll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of players don't know that there is any such thing as the "Laws" They certainly don't differentiate between the Laws of Contract Bridge and local regulations, nor do I think that they have an informed opinions about the differences between the two... ____________________________________________________________________________ __________ You are so right. Bridge is probably the only game for witch players don't know basic rules. Most federations, as mine, have no program to help changing this fact. I help many players becoming ACBL club director and gave some seminars on laws into clubs and tournaments. Most bridge players around here don't make any difference between Laws and Regulations and all them think that ACBL made the whole thing. Laval Du Breuil Quebec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110331/ee72a360/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Mar 31 17:04:12 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:04:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4D9445A2.8080308@ulb.ac.be><4D945C33.6050008@aol.com> <4D94655C.2020103@ulb.ac.be> <000601cbefb0$6a6b71a0$3f4254e0$@com> Message-ID: There's quite a few of those round here... Bridge is probably the only game for witch players don't know basic rules. ------------------------------------------- A new middle east crisis erupted last night as Dubai Television was refused permission to broadcast 'The Flintstones'. A spokesman for the channel said.... 'A claim was made that people in Dubai would not understand the humour, but we know for a fact that people in Abu Dhabi Do -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110331/3694ef02/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 31 23:15:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:15:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Revised Law 27, effective 1st April 2011 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: WBF Press Release, Friday 1st April 2011 Due to the well-known problems with the 2008 Law 27 (Insufficient Bid), this will be the revised 2011 Law 27, effective immediately. 2011 Law 27 - INSUFFICIENT BID A. Legality of Insufficient Bid Each and every insufficient bid is now fully legal, whether or not it is in rotation or out of rotation.* B. Conventional Insufficient Bid 1. If a convention is permitted by the Regulating Authority when sufficient, then that convention must also be permitted by the Regulating Authority when insufficient. 2. Partnerships may design bidding systems which gain vitally needed bidding space by frequently employing insufficient bids. C. Insufficient System Cards Partnerships should insufficiently record their insufficient agreements on their System Cards, using one word or less to describe each insufficient agreement. * So it is now legal for a player to make two or three (or more) bids in a row, provided that each succeeding bid is less sufficient than every preceding bid. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 31 23:51:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:51:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Futile Willie [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >..... >IMO, Doubles should be *announced^. In the UK, we announce many no- >trump ranges, Stayman, Transfers, and Two bids. >..... Richard Hills: Circumstances alter cases. For a clearcut commonplace 1NT opening bid, Stayman response, Transfer response or opening Two bid almost every partnership has a clearcut mutual understanding. But in a murky competitive auction many players would be unsure whether a Double is negative/responsive/optional or penalty/penalty/ penalty. A mandated announcement of all Doubles would allow such fuzzy partnerships to create new understandings during the auction. That is why Australia has joined Belgium in making Doubles self- alerting. But unlike Belgium's incentive for quasi-experts to create >>..... >>25 different kinds of double, none of them penalty and (if the >>above contribution is anything to go by) most of them stupid >>..... so thus unfairly catch the opponents unawares with unsound Doubles, in Australia all players (non- quasi- and semi-expert) must pre- alert all unusual partnership understandings at the start of the round or match. What's the problem? The problem, it seems to me, is that Nigel is a Platonic idealist and hence often overlooks the fact that the world is not ideal, as the best solution to a problem may often be a kludge. Australia's Macquarie Dictionary: kludge, n. a computer system or program which is improvised in a clumsy and inelegant fashion but which nevertheless succeeds in performing the required task Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------