From cibor at poczta.fm Sun May 1 15:21:42 2011 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 15:21:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim Message-ID: Hi gang, Matchpoints: A832 K5 J65 KQ87 KJ10954 76 A92 J10643 A2 9743 A3 109 Q Q87 KQ108 J6542 North South have reached a not exactly laydown 3NT contract. West lead a low heart and South won and went on to establish his clubs. West ducked the first club, took the second, and after some soul searching fired back the SK. The shift struck gold. South did his best ie. he won and cashed clubs which amounted to six tricks. West kept two bare red aces and his running spades. When South played a low diamond from hand, however, West fell from grace and pitched a low spade allowing South to steal his 7th trick for the DJ which had some significance at MP. South played another diamond but when he put up the king West woke up, took his DA and claimed the rest. Two down. The TD was called. West objected to transferring any tricks to South due to the revoke because his hand was already high a trick earlier and he could have claimed then. Your ruling is... Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ----------------------------------------- Do rozdania mamy nowoczesne aparaty fotograficzne! Sprawdz jak wygrac >> http://linkint.pl/f299d From petereidt at t-online.de Sun May 1 16:48:41 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 16:48:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?A_revoke_and_a_belated_claim?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1QGXwv-0F7gm00@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > Matchpoints: > > A832 > K5 > J65 > KQ87 > KJ10954 76 > A92 J10643 > A2 9743 > A3 109 > Q > Q87 > KQ108 > J6542 > > North South have reached a not exactly laydown 3NT contract. > West lead a low heart and South won and went on to establish his > clubs. West ducked the first club, took the second, and after some > soul searching fired back the SK. The shift struck gold. South > did his best ie. he won and cashed clubs which amounted to six > tricks. West kept two bare red aces and his running spades. > When South played a low diamond from hand, however, West > fell from grace and pitched a low spade allowing South to > steal his 7th trick for the DJ which had some significance at MP. > South played another diamond but when he put up the king West > woke up, took his DA and claimed the rest. Two down. > > The TD was called. West objected to transferring any tricks > to South due to the revoke because his hand was already > high a trick earlier and he could have claimed then. > > Your ruling is... 8 tricks ... down 1 why? ... because it is the law (64 A2) From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Sun May 1 17:46:38 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:46:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001cc0816$f60e5960$e22b0c20$@com> The TD was called. West objected to transferring any tricks to South due to the revoke because his hand was already high a trick earlier and he could have claimed then. Your ruling is... Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ____________________________________________________________ I just rule as written in TFLB. There was an established revoke (Law 63). The offender did not won the revoke trick, so 1 trick to non-offending side (Law 64A2). The rest (because and I could have) is immaterial. Laval Du Breuil Quebec From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 1 18:21:41 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 12:21:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 01 May 2011 09:21:42 -0400, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hi gang, > > Matchpoints: > > A832 > K5 > J65 > KQ87 > KJ10954 76 > A92 J10643 > A2 9743 > A3 109 > Q > Q87 > KQ108 > J6542 > > North South have reached a not exactly laydown 3NT contract. > West lead a low heart and South won and went on to establish his > clubs. West ducked the first club, took the second, and after some > soul searching fired back the SK. The shift struck gold. South > did his best ie. he won and cashed clubs which amounted to six > tricks. West kept two bare red aces and his running spades. > When South played a low diamond from hand, however, West > fell from grace and pitched a low spade allowing South to > steal his 7th trick for the DJ which had some significance at MP. > South played another diamond but when he put up the king West > woke up, took his DA and claimed the rest. Two down. > > The TD was called. West objected to transferring any tricks > to South due to the revoke because his hand was already > high a trick earlier and he could have claimed then. > > Your ruling is... One of the advantages of claiming is that you can't revoke. He should have claimed, but did not. Could have claimed is, as everyone has noted, irrelevant. -- http://somepsychology.com From ehaa at starpower.net Mon May 2 16:12:41 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 10:12:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> Message-ID: <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> On Apr 29, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:14:49 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> >>> Maybe Law 41 should say that all of dummy's cards must be showing? >>> >>> It doesn't quite have it. Today dummy spread his hand face up >>> with one >>> card hidden behind another. I think a player who was stuck in that >>> situation might construct and believe the argument that it isn't >>> in the >>> laws and hence isn't an irregularity. I can argue that they don't >>> mention >>> every obvious thing, but L41D is mostly obvious things. >>> >>> Or maybe the laws were very thoughtfully written and a hidden card >>> isn't >>> an irregularity. That's not my guess, but I don't know. >>> >>> >>> "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of >>> him >>> on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank >>> with >>> the lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing >>> lengthwise towards decaler. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. >> >> Can dummy's cards be considered "spread in front of him on the table, >> face >> up, sorted into suits" if any of his 13 cards are not visible? > > I think there is nothing wrong with how I began this posting: > "Today dummy > spread his hand face up with one card hidden behind another." Was that > jarring to anyone? So I think the answer is yes, cards can be > spread out > even if one is hidden. "Spread out" seems to contrast to "being in > a pile" > or "all together". So I have no trouble saying that people are > spread out > all over the world even if some are on top of each other. > > Put another way, if the law said "completely spread out" I wouldn't > have > taken that as redundant. > > Of course, if you know how you want to read the law, you can interpret > "spread out" as meaning what you want it to mean. Then we have a > good law > that we think says exactly what we want it to think. But I am > pretty sure > that the dummy who was rectified for hiding his card yesterday > would have > read it in the way he wanted. It is nice when the law prevents > arguments. > And someone just reading the law might wonder, perhaps the lawmakers > intended no rectification for a hidden card in dummy. I would assume that's the case. Although TFLB doesn't explicitly say so, it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; defenders have no claim to redress for damage caused by their failure to notice that dummy came down with a card missuited or hidden. This seems practical, as it prevents an opponent who notices a flawed dummy immediately from choosing to wait to mention it until the most advantageous time for a director call leading to a potentially favorable subsequent adjudication. Legally, this is nothing more than a straightforward interpretation of L12C1(b): misdefending a hand because you failed to notice that the dummy lying on the table in front of you was defective seems like an obvious case for self-inflicted damage. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfchevalier at ffbridge.net Mon May 2 17:45:15 2011 From: jfchevalier at ffbridge.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Fran=E7ois_Chevalier?=) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 17:45:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DBED18B.2090202@ffbridge.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110502/a2e86499/attachment.html From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Mon May 2 19:08:12 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 13:08:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <4DBED18B.2090202@ffbridge.net> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DBED18B.2090202@ffbridge.net> Message-ID: <000901cc08eb$85b9b9e0$912d2da0$@com> Legally, this is nothing more than a straightforward interpretation of L12C1(b): misdefending a hand because you failed to notice that the dummy lying on the table in front of you was defective seems like an obvious case for self-inflicted damage. ______________________________________________________________ It is not so clear : the dummy has committed an irregularity which is the direct cause of damage to the non-offending side. The latter is therefore entitled to compensation. No law require defenders to verify that the death has spread his 13 cards. ____________________________________________________________ Hi all, Not more clear to me. Law 41D requires dummy spreads his hand in front of him, faced up. According to the definitions, hand is the cards originally dealt (or remaining). There is nothing in the Laws about this hypothetic responsibility of dummy for all players and IMHO it is false. I use to playback the board, trying to see if there was any damage caused to NOS. Laval Du Breuil Quebec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110502/461171ca/attachment.html From cibor at poczta.fm Mon May 2 22:55:21 2011 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 22:55:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened References: Message-ID: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 3:21 PM Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim Hi gang, Matchpoints: A832 K5 J65 KQ87 KJ10954 76 A92 J10643 A2 9743 A3 109 Q Q87 KQ108 J6542 Everybody shruggs and rules one down without much do. Not that I expected any different. Let's call this case a Made Up one because in real life the sequence of events was different and there was no claim whatsoever. In the Real Life Case I was declarer. After having cashed my clubs I played a diamond. West indeed revoked by pitching the S5 even though he still had his singleton ace in diamonds. But when I played the DJ from dummy West woke up and admitted that he had the diamond ace. The TD was called and ruled correctly that the revoke hadn't yet established so West was forced to play the DA to this trick and the S5 became a penalty card. So it was West who took the revoke trick and now he had to play his S5. I put up the S8 and ended up with 2 spades, a heart, 4 clubs and 3 diamonds. 430. If the Made Up Case is a no-brainer one down then it looks that West would have been better off deliberately concealing his revoke for one trick. If he had admitted to having revoked one trick later he would still have beaten the contract. Given this is anyone ready to revise his ruling in the Made Up Case? If so - on what grounds? Can we apply 72B3 and go from there to 12A1 perhaps? Or do we stick to our guns in the Made Up Case and rule "rub of the green"? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pogoda na dlugi weekend Sprawdz >>> http://linkint.pl/f299b From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 01:43:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:43:22 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [snip] >West would have been better off deliberately concealing his >revoke for one trick. If he had admitted to having revoked >one trick later he would still have beaten the contract. > >Given this is anyone ready to revise his ruling in the Made >Up Case? If so - on what grounds? Can we apply 72B3 and go >from there to 12A1 perhaps? > >Or do we stick to our guns in the Made Up Case and rule "rub >of the green"? Law 62A - Revoke Must Be Corrected: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Richard Hills: Easy-peasy. If in Made Up Case we as TD rule that there has been an infraction of Law 62A, then Made Up Case is adjusted to the same score as in Real Life Case, +430 to the non- offending side. The only difference between Made Up Case and Real Life Case is that the facts would suggest that the offending side would deserve a severe Procedural Penalty in the Made Up Case. If, however, in Made Up Case we as TD rule that there was not an infraction of Law 62A, then indeed the "rub of the green" Law 10C4 applies: " ... after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction ... " Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110502/55876f7f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 02:18:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:18:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8B201CC8A3BE43F391B11E35E974E86A@Thain> Message-ID: >"I have learnt from my mistakes and I feel sure that, with >practice, I can repeat them." > ~' Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling' (Peter Cook) Lev Landau (1908-1968), Russian physicist: "Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt." Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Richard Hills writes: > > "Since I have partnered Hashmat for two millennia I > _know_ what Hashmat's twitch demonstrably suggests." > >I do not doubt that he knows what it suggests, but >'demonstrably' - how stretched would he be to demonstrate it? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Testimony against my own interest to the Director might satisfy the Law 85 "balance of probabilities" that I both received UI from pard, and also that that UI meant pard was holding maximum values for the auction so far. Although in a private communication a blmler argued that I might have poorly evaluated my cards, with a raise to 4S my only logical alternative (especially vul at Butler scoring, which favours 33% games). Butler imps scored against an Olympic datum, 14-board matches but using the WBF 12-board Victory Point scale Dlr: West, Vul: North-South, East and West pass throughout Richard Hills Hashmat Ali NORTH SOUTH 1NT(1) 2H (2) 2S (3) 3S (4) ? (1) 11-14 hcp balanced, denies a 5-card major (2) transfer to spades (3) now denies a 4-card spade suit (4) natural and invitational, but with a little subtle twitch noticed by North, but not noticed by East-West J93 Q953 AJT9 A5 Other blmler's comments: >>A close decision, unfortunately. The trump support and >>ruffing value actually elevates the hand from a "poor" 12 to >>13-1/2 or so, calling for acceptance. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110503/445d2745/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 02:34:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:34:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DB01B29.5080901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >two opposite suggestions can't both be >demonstrable. Whence, if there are several >possible explanations for partner's attitude, >which point into different directions, none >demonstrates anything. Richard Hills: Correct. According to my imperfect memory, this was one reason that the 1987 Law 16 was updated in 1997 by the insertion of the adjective "demonstrably", since prior to 1997 some Directors and some Appeals Committees were adopting the proverb "he who hesitates is lost". But proceeding from the general to the specific: (1) pard hesitates with a maximum 90% of the time (2) pard hesitates with a minimum 10% of the time Since "there are several possible explanations for partner's attitude, which point into different directions" does or does not UI exist? Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110503/f713f28d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 3 04:03:00 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:03:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A little flaunt case [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe: STREPHON: My Lord, I know no Courts of Chancery; I go by Nature's Acts of Parliament. The bees ? the breeze ? the seas ? the rooks ? the brooks ? the gales ? the vales ? the fountains and the mountains cry, "You love this maiden ? take her, we command you!" 'Tis writ in heaven by the bright barb?d dart that leaps forth into lurid light from each grim thundercloud. The very rain pours forth her sad and sodden sympathy! When chorused Nature bids me take my love, shall I reply, "Nay, but a certain Chancellor forbids it"? Sir, you are England's Lord High Chancellor, but are you Chancellor of birds and trees, King of the winds and Prince of thunderclouds? LORD CH: No. It's a nice point. I don't know that I ever met it before. But my difficulty is that at present there's no evidence before the Court that chorused Nature has interested herself in the matter. STREPHON: No evidence! You have my word for it. I tell you that she bade me take my love. LORD CH: Ah! But, my good sir, you mustn't tell us what she told you ? it's not evidence. Now an affidavit from a thunderstorm, or a few words on oath from a heavy shower, would meet with all the attention they deserve. Nigel Guthrie: >No excuse for breaking the law; Richard Hills: Agreed. "I can break the rules because Strephon did it first," is the rationalisation of a spoilt child. Nigel Guthrie: >but an argument for >- Amending the text of the law-book in place, Richard Hills: Agreed. In particular my hobby-horse is that there should be more explanatory footnotes to important Laws, containing indicative examples. The classic explanatory footnote with indicative examples was the footnote to Law 75 in the 1997 Lawbook. (When Law 75 was merged into Law 40 in the 2007 Lawbook, the former 1997 Law 75 footnote was promoted to become the new 2007 Law 75.) Nigel Guthrie: >where necessary. Richard Hills: And where unnecessary also. Over-succinctness and a lack of unnecessary repetition in the Lawbook can create problems when a key Law is overlooked because a Director is looking in the wrong place. A step in the right direction occurred when the 2007 Drafting Committee decided to duplicate a significant clause of the 2007 Law 75C elsewhere as the 2007 Law 21B1(b). Nigel Guthrie: >- Reclassifying unenforceable "laws" as "proprieties" Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. All current Laws are enforceable. This is why the 1975 Lawbook's non-binding Proprieties (without Law numbers) were changed to the 1987 Lawbook's enforceable Proprieties (with Law numbers). Nigel Guthrie: >The long-term solution is to simplify and clarify all >the laws until the best directors can understand and >enforce them. Richard Hills: Better still would be Laws that would make these blml discussions obsolete, a Lawbook that even the WORST of Directors could understand and enforce. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110503/44e81098/attachment-0001.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 3 09:33:33 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 09:33:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> wrong, Richard: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski: > > [snip] > > >West would have been better off deliberately concealing his > >revoke for one trick. If he had admitted to having revoked > >one trick later he would still have beaten the contract. > > > >Given this is anyone ready to revise his ruling in the Made > >Up Case? If so - on what grounds? Can we apply 72B3 and go > >from there to 12A1 perhaps? > > > >Or do we stick to our guns in the Made Up Case and rule "rub > >of the green"? > > Law 62A - Revoke Must Be Corrected: > > "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established." > > Richard Hills: > > Easy-peasy. If in Made Up Case we as TD rule that there has > been an infraction of Law 62A, then Made Up Case is adjusted > to the same score as in Real Life Case, +430 to the non- > offending side. The only difference between Made Up Case and > Real Life Case is that the facts would suggest that the > offending side would deserve a severe Procedural Penalty in > the Made Up Case. > > If, however, in Made Up Case we as TD rule that there was not > an infraction of Law 62A, then indeed the "rub of the green" > Law 10C4 applies: > > " ... after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate > for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to > their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through > their own infraction ... " > read it again: "any call or play". Speaking out about a not-yet established revoke is not a call or play. So this law does not apply. However, a player is required to call the TD (thereby halting play) when an irregularity has been drawn attention to. The player is fully within his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke, even if he could have known that it would be to his advantage to do so. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills I really could not resist to make my first post after our two birthdays start with "wrong, Richard". Why do I feel I need to do so? Perhaps because Richard is so often incorrect. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From cibor at poczta.fm Tue May 3 12:33:41 2011 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:33:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened References: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <870C3E96BBFF49DCAF9955BB9F2A9FC3@sfora4869e47f1> > The player is fully within > his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke But 62A says he MUST correct it. And 72B3 says he mustn't conceal it. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ----------------------------------------- Wez udzial w konkursie i WYGRAJ! Sprawdz >> http://linkint.pl/f299e From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Tue May 3 12:46:27 2011 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:46:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110503104657.4C610990C0DA@relay2.webreus.nl> [Richard:] >Law 62A - Revoke Must Be Corrected: > >"A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the >irregularity before it becomes established." [Herman:] The player is fully within his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke, even if he could have known that it would be to his advantage to do so. These two statements are inconsistent, and I agree with Richard. If the player deliberately concealed his non-established revoke then a PP is in order. It is up to the TD to find out if this is the case. From svenpran at online.no Tue May 3 13:14:49 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:14:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <20110503104657.4C610990C0DA@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20110503104657.4C610990C0DA@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <002c01cc0983$51975620$f4c60260$@no> Only in very exceptional cases can a player gain from letting his revoke become established rather than correcting it in time. This question will most often be a waste of time, and as already iindicated: If the Director is satisfied that a player has deliberately violated law 62A he may use Law 12A1 and award an adjusted score for this offence (in addition to possible PP). > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Smulders > Sent: 3. mai 2011 12:46 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened > > [Richard:] > >Law 62A - Revoke Must Be Corrected: > > > >"A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > >irregularity before it becomes established." > > [Herman:] > The player is fully within his rights to not draw attention to his > non-established revoke, even if he could have known that it would be > to his advantage to do so. > > These two statements are inconsistent, and I agree with Richard. > If the player deliberately concealed his non-established revoke then > a PP is in order. > It is up to the TD to find out if this is the case. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 3 16:44:22 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 16:44:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened In-Reply-To: <870C3E96BBFF49DCAF9955BB9F2A9FC3@sfora4869e47f1> References: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> <870C3E96BBFF49DCAF9955BB9F2A9FC3@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4DC014C6.5000809@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> The player is fully within >> his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke > > But 62A says he MUST correct it. OK, so it does. Which is a law that requires mind-reading. Grattan, could you put this in your notebook, since it is clearly a law that needs looking at. > And 72B3 says he mustn't conceal it. > Yeah, but it does not say that he must "become aware". > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue May 3 16:52:18 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 16:52:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <002c01cc0983$51975620$f4c60260$@no> References: <20110503104657.4C610990C0DA@relay2.webreus.nl> <002c01cc0983$51975620$f4c60260$@no> Message-ID: <4DC016A2.6030206@skynet.be> OK, you may be right, but how often are we going to find: a) a case in which an established revoke is less damaging (to the offender) than a non-established one; and b) a defender who realises this in time for him to realise he should make his revoke established; and c) a defender who will freely admit to acting in this manner. So this law will never ever be used. If however, the law does apply, then we need to rule +1 in the real-life Polish case. which means that we need to check each and every established revoke to see if there was no way the revoke could have been more costly if it had not been established, and rule against a player saying "if you had done this on purpose, we could rule against you, but we shall do so anyway just to make certain no-one does this on purpose". Rather, I prefer to allow a player to do it on purpose. Makes for a nice story, anyway. And it does away with a law that cannot be applied anyway. Herman. Sven Pran wrote: > Only in very exceptional cases can a player gain from letting his revoke > become established rather than correcting it in time. This question will > most often be a waste of time, and as already iindicated: If the Director is > satisfied that a player has deliberately violated law 62A he may use Law > 12A1 and award an adjusted score for this offence (in addition to possible > PP). > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >> Of Peter Smulders >> Sent: 3. mai 2011 12:46 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened >> >> [Richard:] >>> Law 62A - Revoke Must Be Corrected: >>> >>> "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the >>> irregularity before it becomes established." >> >> [Herman:] >> The player is fully within his rights to not draw attention to his >> non-established revoke, even if he could have known that it would be >> to his advantage to do so. >> >> These two statements are inconsistent, and I agree with Richard. >> If the player deliberately concealed his non-established revoke then >> a PP is in order. >> It is up to the TD to find out if this is the case. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3611 - Release Date: 05/02/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 3 18:39:39 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:39:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <4DC016A2.6030206@skynet.be> References: <20110503104657.4C610990C0DA@relay2.webreus.nl> <002c01cc0983$51975620$f4c60260$@no> <4DC016A2.6030206@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 03 May 2011 10:52:18 -0400, Herman De Wael wrote: > OK, you may be right, but how often are we going to find: > a) a case in which an established revoke is less damaging (to the > offender) than a non-established one; and > b) a defender who realises this in time for him to realise he should > make his revoke established; and > c) a defender who will freely admit to acting in this manner. (c) is the kicker. The laws require a player to confess to his unestablished revoke, but there is no way of forcing him to do that or rectifying him if he does not. As for (a) and (b), what about the second revoke in a suit? Happened last night -- the player revoked once, revoked again, then caught himself in time to correct the second revoke. Since there would have been no penalty for the second revoke, all he did was create a penalty card. > > So this law will never ever be used. > > If however, the law does apply, then we need to rule +1 in the real-life > Polish case. which means that we need to check each and every > established revoke to see if there was no way the revoke could have been > more costly if it had not been established, and rule against a player > saying "if you had done this on purpose, we could rule against you, but > we shall do so anyway just to make certain no-one does this on purpose". > > Rather, I prefer to allow a player to do it on purpose. Makes for a nice > story, anyway. > And it does away with a law that cannot be applied anyway. > > Herman. > > Sven Pran wrote: >> Only in very exceptional cases can a player gain from letting his revoke >> become established rather than correcting it in time. This question will >> most often be a waste of time, and as already iindicated: If the >> Director is >> satisfied that a player has deliberately violated law 62A he may use Law >> 12A1 and award an adjusted score for this offence (in addition to >> possible >> PP). >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf >>> Of Peter Smulders >>> Sent: 3. mai 2011 12:46 >>> To: blml at rtflb.org >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened >>> >>> [Richard:] >>>> Law 62A - Revoke Must Be Corrected: >>>> >>>> "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the >>>> irregularity before it becomes established." >>> >>> [Herman:] >>> The player is fully within his rights to not draw attention to his >>> non-established revoke, even if he could have known that it would be >>> to his advantage to do so. >>> >>> These two statements are inconsistent, and I agree with Richard. >>> If the player deliberately concealed his non-established revoke then >>> a PP is in order. >>> It is up to the TD to find out if this is the case. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3611 - Release Date: 05/02/11 >> >> > -- http://somepsychology.com From jeanmarc.boite at gmail.com Tue May 3 23:14:38 2011 From: jeanmarc.boite at gmail.com (Jean-Marc Boite) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 23:14:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > I would assume that's the case. Although TFLB doesn't explicitly say > so, it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle > that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; defenders > have no claim to redress for damage caused by their failure to notice > that dummy came down with a card missuited or hidden. This seems > practical, as it prevents an opponent who notices a flawed dummy > immediately from choosing to wait to mention it until the most > advantageous time for a director call leading to a potentially > favorable subsequent adjudication. > This is your own interpretation of the law. The sentence "everyone is responsible for dummy" is nowhere to be found in the laws. The case just appears in the (non official) event I'm organising while I post this message: I was kibitzing at a table , and when dummy spread his hand, it contained only 12 cards. Although the contract was a partial doubled, and oponents are high level, nobody noticed. As a director, I decided to mention the fact that the dummy had only 12 cards. I found the missing card lying on the floor at the other table, and restored it to dummt's hand. Now the question is, when you are director, and see an irregularity like this one, do you mention it? Jean-Marc Boite -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110503/7e7f8b9f/attachment.html From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue May 3 23:40:42 2011 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 23:40:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened In-Reply-To: <4DC014C6.5000809@skynet.be> References: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> <870C3E96BBFF49DCAF9955BB9F2A9FC3@sfora4869e47f1> <4DC014C6.5000809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DC0765A.2090403@t-online.de> Am 03.05.2011 16:44, schrieb Herman De Wael: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>> The player is fully within >>> his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke >> >> But 62A says he MUST correct it. > > OK, so it does. > Which is a law that requires mind-reading. No, Herman, it requires honesty. Only if that is absent we need other things. I have no problem with a law that expects people to actually follow the law. From adam at tameware.com Wed May 4 00:24:49 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 18:24:49 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) NABC+ Cases Posted Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Orlando2010.html If you want to discuss a particular case please post a new message with the case?number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this one. I'll post my draft comments later this week. I don't know when the Non-NABC+ cases will be posted. -- Adam Wildavsky? ? www.tameware.com From cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 4 00:44:12 2011 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 00:44:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened References: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> <870C3E96BBFF49DCAF9955BB9F2A9FC3@sfora4869e47f1><4DC014C6.5000809@skynet.be> <4DC0765A.2090403@t-online.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened > Am 03.05.2011 16:44, schrieb Herman De Wael: >> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>>> The player is fully within >>>> his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke >>> >>> But 62A says he MUST correct it. >> >> OK, so it does. >> Which is a law that requires mind-reading. > > No, Herman, it requires honesty. Only if that is absent we need other > things. > > I have no problem with a law that expects people to actually follow the > law. Except that it favors the cheats. Any law under which cheats have the advantage is a stupid one. Every sensible law system should make nefarious conduct unprofitable. Right now in way too many areas the bridge laws make cheating either a no-lose proposition (ie. by weighing scores in the same fashion for OS and NOS - so deliberatly taking advantage of partner's hesitation is now a no-lose action - if they call the TD you get the same score (on average) you 'd get anyway but then they might not call the TD at all) or make cheating profitable (case like this one where a cheat would get a better score than a player who follows the rules). The first step to rectify the situation is get rid of all laws that by definition cannot be enforced (because TD cannot read minds). 62A would be a good start. One question to the whole "if the TD is satisfied that a player has deliberately violated law 62A" brigade - how you EVER seen a TD rule that a player has deliberately violated 62A? Just once. No? Then there is no better proof that it is a dead law. Let's get rid of it. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Matura 2011 - rozwiazemy dla was zadania! Sprawdz - http://linkint.pl/f299f From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 4 01:17:42 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 01:17:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened In-Reply-To: References: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> <870C3E96BBFF49DCAF9955BB9F2A9FC3@sfora4869e47f1><4DC014C6.5000809@skynet.be> <4DC0765A.2090403@t-online.de> Message-ID: <4DC08D16.4040706@skynet.be> Konrad is right, but his argument is flawed: Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:40 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened > > >> Am 03.05.2011 16:44, schrieb Herman De Wael: >>> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>>>> The player is fully within >>>>> his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke >>>> >>>> But 62A says he MUST correct it. >>> >>> OK, so it does. >>> Which is a law that requires mind-reading. >> >> No, Herman, it requires honesty. Only if that is absent we need other >> things. >> >> I have no problem with a law that expects people to actually follow the >> law. > > Except that it favors the cheats. > Exactly. > Any law under which cheats have the advantage is a stupid one. > Every sensible law system should make nefarious conduct > unprofitable. > > Right now in way too many areas the bridge laws make cheating > either a no-lose proposition I agree, but this example is not correct: (ie. by weighing scores in > the same fashion for OS and NOS - well, in MI this is done, but not: so deliberatly taking > advantage of partner's hesitation is now a no-lose action - > if they call the TD you get the same score (on average) > you 'd get anyway but then they might not call the TD at all) > or make cheating profitable (case like this one where > a cheat would get a better score than a player who > follows the rules). > This is not correct, since by not taking the suggested action, you may get lucky, while by taking it you will get a ruling which usually does not take into account that you may have gotten lucky. But the real problem is not the using of the UI, but the giving of it. When your partner has given UI, he has already given you a bad score, since you will not be allowed to take the suggested action, while without the UI you might make that one. So creating UI is already a losing option - no need to make using it also a big losing one. > The first step to rectify the situation is get rid of all laws > that by definition cannot be enforced (because TD > cannot read minds). > > 62A would be a good start. One question to the whole > "if the TD is satisfied that a player has deliberately violated > law 62A" brigade - how you EVER seen a TD rule > that a player has deliberately violated 62A? > Just once. No? > > Then there is no better proof that it is a dead law. > Let's get rid of it. > Well argued, Konrad. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Matura 2011 - rozwiazemy dla was zadania! > Sprawdz - http://linkint.pl/f299f > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3612 - Release Date: 05/03/11 > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 4 01:32:09 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:32:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> Message-ID: Law 62A - Revoke Must Be Corrected: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Herman De Wael [Herman's correct analysis of Richard's incorrect first argument snipped, but Herman's incorrect analysis of Richard's correct second argument not snipped]: The player is fully within his rights to not draw attention to his non-established revoke, even if he could have known that it would be to his advantage to do so. I really could not resist to make my first post after our two birthdays start with "wrong, Richard". Why do I feel I need to do so? Perhaps because Richard is so often incorrect. Law 72B2 - Infraction of Law: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (***but*** see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation ***and see Laws 62A*** and 79A2)." Richard Hills: I really could not resist to make my fourth post after our two birthdays finish with "wrong, Herman". Why do I feel I need to do so? Perhaps because Herman is so rarely incorrect (or more precisely, Herman alleges that he has been consistently correct and that the WBF Laws Committee has been consistently incorrect). :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110503/fb081234/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed May 4 05:27:58 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 13:27:58 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> References: <4DBFAFCD.70904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <201105040328.p443Sctt030205@mail08.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:33 PM 3/05/2011, Herman wrote: >wrong, Richard: > etc. What is happening? Herman makes an egregious error, lobbing up a slow full toss that even I could have hit to the boundary. Konrad puts it over the fence and HERMAN ADMITS MISTAKE. However, Herman claims TFLB might be in error because it makes directors into mind readers and might penalise players who wish to cheat! Amazing. I am going for a BEX and a good lie down, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed May 4 06:45:11 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 00:45:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Orlando NABC+ Case 9: responsive double Message-ID: <3F851A1F726E4AF5935D41FDA7687DC7@erdos> S W N E P P 1H 1S 2H X P 2N P P X XX P 3S X AP The write-up describes West's double as "responsive", but the doubler's hand was QT9 JT83 AK7 T73. The usual agreement about responsive doubles after a major-suit overcall is that they show both minors; this hand looks like a normal Rozenkranz double to me. Is "responsive" an error in the write-up, is it misinformation or misbid, or is this how they play responsive doubles (in which case I would expect at least an alert)? It does appear that East took the double as responsive, as he bid 2NT (asking partner to pick a minor) with 5=0=4=4, rather than 2S on his minimum overcall. If West intended the double as Rozenkranz, then he had MI; 2NT after a Rozenkranz double should be a game try, which West might accept. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 4 07:59:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 15:59:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] May the Fourth be with you [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowkski: Any law under which cheats have the advantage is a stupid one. Every sensible law system should make nefarious conduct unprofitable. ..... Richard Hills: I disagree. Paraphrase of a quote that I cannot immediately track down: "A game is where players voluntarily agree to adopt binding rules." A sensible set of rules for a game should be aimed at making the game enjoyable for the vast majority of players who are not cheats. The vast majority of players do not intentionally revoke. Therefore for many decades it has been the rule that a normally harmless revoke on trick 12 does not attract the transfer of a trick to the non-offending side. However, gafiated blmler Marvin French related the story of how a nefarious ACBL expert apparently intentionally revoked on trick 12 against him (and perhaps may have specialised in trick 12 revokes against less observant opponents). So what? Eventually an ACBL or Aussie expert who embraces the Dark Side of the Force will get a ten-year ban from Duplicate Bridge. Penalising the zillions of Little Old Ladies who unintentionally commit a trick 12 revoke to limit the scope of mere dozens of cheats who intentionally commit a trick 12 revoke is a lopsided cost-benefit analysis. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110504/2242e32f/attachment-0001.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Wed May 4 09:10:07 2011 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 09:10:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110504071011.48869990C0A0@relay2.webreus.nl> At 08:00 4-5-2011,Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >62A would be a good start. One question to the whole >"if the TD is satisfied that a player has deliberately violated >law 62A" brigade - how you EVER seen a TD rule >that a player has deliberately violated 62A? >Just once. No? > >Then there is no better proof that it is a dead law. >Let's get rid of it The fact that a law is seldomly broken does not make it a bad law, let alone a dead law. Most players would not even think of hiding a revoke when they discover it before the trick is over. Yet it is a good thing the laws tell them what the proper action is. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 4 09:38:04 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 09:38:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened In-Reply-To: <20110504071011.48869990C0A0@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20110504071011.48869990C0A0@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4DC1025C.8060800@skynet.be> Peter Smulders wrote: > At 08:00 4-5-2011,Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> 62A would be a good start. One question to the whole >> "if the TD is satisfied that a player has deliberately violated >> law 62A" brigade - how you EVER seen a TD rule >> that a player has deliberately violated 62A? >> Just once. No? >> >> Then there is no better proof that it is a dead law. >> Let's get rid of it > > The fact that a law is seldomly broken does not make it a bad law, > let alone a dead law. Most players would not even think of hiding a > revoke when they discover it before the trick is over. Yet it is a > good thing the laws tell them what the proper action is. > The problem arises not with people not thinking about this, it arises when others start believing they could have thought about it. Since they don't think about doing it, there is no need to also write down they should not do it. By allowing people to think about doing it, you do not have to rule against somebody who did not think about it, simply because he might have thought about it. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 4 15:20:34 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:20:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what reallyhappened In-Reply-To: <20110504071011.48869990C0A0@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20110504071011.48869990C0A0@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: On May 4, 2011, at 3:10 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: > At 08:00 4-5-2011,Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> 62A would be a good start. One question to the whole >> "if the TD is satisfied that a player has deliberately violated >> law 62A" brigade - how you EVER seen a TD rule >> that a player has deliberately violated 62A? >> Just once. No? >> >> Then there is no better proof that it is a dead law. >> Let's get rid of it > > The fact that a law is seldomly broken does not make it a bad law, > let alone a dead law. Most players would not even think of hiding a > revoke when they discover it before the trick is over. Yet it is a > good thing the laws tell them what the proper action is. Well put. The question as to whether it's a useful law isn't, "Have you ever seen a TD rule that a player violated it?", but rather, "Do you see players following it even when doing so might work to their disadvantage?" I do. If we want to encourage an ethical game, the rules must define what that is, even if it takes "mind-reading" to know whether said definition is being complied with in some cases. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 4 16:21:08 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 10:21:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > If the Made Up Case is a no-brainer one down then it looks > that West would have been better off deliberately > concealing his revoke for one trick. ... > Given this is anyone ready to revise his ruling in the Made Up Case? > If so - on what grounds? If you want to revise the ruling in "Made Up Case," L23 gives you grounds to do so. This seems right to me: why should a player who lets his revoke become established do worse than one who corrects it in time? The problem is that it would never occur to most of us to check. Either the need to check should be incorporated into L64, or L62A should be revised or eliminated. Going back to the two-trick revoke penalty would also help. It seems there are now three of us who want to eliminate all laws that call for mind reading. Maybe by 2098 we'll have a majority. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed May 4 16:25:44 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 10:25:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle > that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy violates L41D. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 4 17:12:09 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 17:12:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; > I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen > rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a > unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy > violates L41D. It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i don't like this) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 4 22:47:25 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:47:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> <4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On May 4, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >> If the Made Up Case is a no-brainer one down then it looks >> that West would have been better off deliberately >> concealing his revoke for one trick. > ... >> Given this is anyone ready to revise his ruling in the Made Up Case? >> If so - on what grounds? > > If you want to revise the ruling in "Made Up Case," L23 gives you > grounds to do so. This seems right to me: why should a player who > lets > his revoke become established do worse than one who corrects it in > time? > The problem is that it would never occur to most of us to check. > Either the need to check should be incorporated into L64, or L62A > should > be revised or eliminated. Going back to the two-trick revoke penalty > would also help. > > It seems there are now three of us who want to eliminate all laws that > call for mind reading. Maybe by 2098 we'll have a majority. I do not view the laws in question (e.g. L62A, which started this discussion) as "calling for" mind reading. Rather, what those laws actually "call for" is honesty. To use the term "mind reading" is to view the game, and the laws, strictly from the director's point of view, rather than the players'. There is a lot to be said for presuming honesty in the context of game, especially one that rewards success with "master points" that are valueless outside of the gaming context, so that it can fairly be said that cheaters are only cheating themselves. Those who would eliminate the presumption of honesty from the laws are willing to risk making the game less pleasant, sociable and relaxing, more antagonistic, coercive and litigious, for the vast majority of players, who are honest, in order to insure ourselves the ability to drive the inevitable, but few, dishonest bad actors out of the game. The tradeoff involved is more significant, complex and difficult than many seem to think. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From cibor at poczta.fm Wed May 4 23:59:58 2011 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 23:59:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1><4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8D1A16A90D874595ADCCC8179AB16054@sfora4869e47f1> > There is a lot to be said for presuming honesty in the context of > game, especially one that rewards success with "master points" that > are valueless outside of the gaming context, so that it can fairly be > said that cheaters are only cheating themselves. Those who would > eliminate the presumption of honesty from the laws are willing to > risk making the game less pleasant, sociable and relaxing, more > antagonistic, coercive and litigious, for the vast majority of > players, who are honest, in order to insure ourselves the ability to > drive the inevitable, but few, dishonest bad actors out of the game. > The tradeoff involved is more significant, complex and difficult than > many seem to think. > I firmly believe that there should be different set of laws for high level games and for club level tournaments. I think it is insane to play the final of the Bermuda Bowl under the same rules as the tournament in Podunk Hollow. As the matter of fact those two tournaments are already played under different laws though formally the Law Book is identical for both of them and the rules are the same. So let's get rif of the fiction.The main purpose of high level tournaments is to identify the winner - all other aims are secondary. The aim of the tourney in Kozia W?lka is to ensure that everybody spends a pleasant evening. There is simply no such animal like the set of rules appropriate for both of them. The pros want the laws to be consistent, the rulings to very well thought out etc. The club public wants - what the hell, give'em 60/60 and let's move on. The current set of rules is way too complex for club players and inadequate for the high level games. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------- Najlepsze oferty na mieszkania i domy! Odwiedz >> http://linkint.pl/f29a9 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu May 5 03:02:04 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 11:02:04 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 41D - Dummy's Hand: "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with the lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy." Sven Pran: Can dummy's cards be considered "spread in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits" if any of his 13 cards are not visible? Robert Frcik: I think there is nothing wrong with how I began this posting: "Today dummy spread his hand face up with one card hidden behind another." Was that jarring to anyone? So I think the answer is yes, cards can be spread out even if one is hidden. "Spread out" seems to contrast to "being in a pile" or "all together". So I have no trouble saying that people are spread out all over the world even if some are on top of each other. Put another way, if the law said "completely spread out" I wouldn't have taken that as redundant. Of course, if you know how you want to read the law, you can interpret "spread out" as meaning what you want it to mean. ..... Richard Hills: In the nineteenth century a new technique of rigour was applied to mathematical logic. For example, a logical entity designated "Robert Frcik" was deemed to be completely different from a logical entity designated "Robert Frick", with the common-sense assumption that "Frcik" was a typo for "Frick" no longer being permitted by the rules of rigour. So while I support obvious ambiguities being removed from the Lawbook, I do not support ridiculous rigour apparently advocated by Robert Frcik. In my opinion "completely spread out" would be redundant. In my very strong opinion Robert Frcik and Herman De Wail are not entitled to interpret the Lawbook as meaning what they want it to mean. Instead those two gentleman should, in my opinion, apply the common-sense doctrines of stare decisis and jurisprudence constante. (The names of these doctrines are not in common-sense use, but the common-sense meaning of stare decisis is "follow the ruling of a higher authority" e.g. the ACBL Laws Commission, and the common-sense meaning of jurisprudence constante is "be influenced by the consensus of other judges" e.g. do not indulge in maverick rulings contrary to the vast majority of other expert Directors.) Best wishes Hilda R. Lirsch -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110505/ffbde11b/attachment-0001.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 5 09:19:59 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:19:59 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> <4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4DC24F9F.4090901@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On May 4, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >>> If the Made Up Case is a no-brainer one down then it looks >>> that West would have been better off deliberately >>> concealing his revoke for one trick. >> ... >>> Given this is anyone ready to revise his ruling in the Made Up Case? >>> If so - on what grounds? >> >> If you want to revise the ruling in "Made Up Case," L23 gives you >> grounds to do so. This seems right to me: why should a player who >> lets >> his revoke become established do worse than one who corrects it in >> time? >> The problem is that it would never occur to most of us to check. >> Either the need to check should be incorporated into L64, or L62A >> should >> be revised or eliminated. Going back to the two-trick revoke penalty >> would also help. >> >> It seems there are now three of us who want to eliminate all laws that >> call for mind reading. Maybe by 2098 we'll have a majority. > > I do not view the laws in question (e.g. L62A, which started this > discussion) as "calling for" mind reading. Rather, what those laws > actually "call for" is honesty. To use the term "mind reading" is to > view the game, and the laws, strictly from the director's point of > view, rather than the players'. > > There is a lot to be said for presuming honesty in the context of > game, especially one that rewards success with "master points" that > are valueless outside of the gaming context, so that it can fairly be > said that cheaters are only cheating themselves. Those who would > eliminate the presumption of honesty from the laws are willing to > risk making the game less pleasant, sociable and relaxing, more > antagonistic, coercive and litigious, for the vast majority of > players, who are honest, in order to insure ourselves the ability to > drive the inevitable, but few, dishonest bad actors out of the game. > The tradeoff involved is more significant, complex and difficult than > many seem to think. > The problem with that view is best illustrated with this case: no-one would doubt the honesty of the player involved, yet the strange facts of the case mean we should treat the honest player as a cheat. I'd rather treat the "cheat" as an honest player, even a very clever one. There is an analogy here to something you might not immediately consider an analogy. Let's pretend that we'd want to treat bidding on after an insufficient call an irregularity. Now sometimes, an innocent player will bid without noticing that the previous call was insufficient. Now we'd might want to rule against this gentleman, but perhaps we feel sorry for his inadvertency. So we allow his bid to stand without penalty. And then, once in a while he benefits from this. Do we now turn back our original ruling and rule against him? No we don't. We tell his opponents "rub of the green" and him "don't do it again". Yet when he does do it again, we can never be certain of his inadvertency. So we decide not to allow the acceptance, just so that he cannot hide his deliberate bidding. And then we are ruling against honest gentleman also. Better is it to simply allow to all what an inattentive player might do inadveertently. > > Eric Landau -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 5 09:21:58 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 09:21:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <8D1A16A90D874595ADCCC8179AB16054@sfora4869e47f1> References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1><4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> <8D1A16A90D874595ADCCC8179AB16054@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <4DC25016.60508@skynet.be> And tell me, Konrad, where you draw the line? Is the final of the Polish championship more like the Bermuda Bowl or more like Podunk Hollow? What about the Mixed pairs championship of Antwerp (at which i came third yesterday)? Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> There is a lot to be said for presuming honesty in the context of >> game, especially one that rewards success with "master points" that >> are valueless outside of the gaming context, so that it can fairly be >> said that cheaters are only cheating themselves. Those who would >> eliminate the presumption of honesty from the laws are willing to >> risk making the game less pleasant, sociable and relaxing, more >> antagonistic, coercive and litigious, for the vast majority of >> players, who are honest, in order to insure ourselves the ability to >> drive the inevitable, but few, dishonest bad actors out of the game. >> The tradeoff involved is more significant, complex and difficult than >> many seem to think. >> > > I firmly believe that there should be different set of laws for > high level games and for club level tournaments. > I think it is insane to play the final of the Bermuda Bowl > under the same rules as the tournament in Podunk Hollow. > > As the matter of fact those two tournaments are already > played under different laws though formally the Law Book > is identical for both of them and the rules are the same. > > So let's get rif of the fiction.The main purpose of high > level tournaments is to identify the winner - all other > aims are secondary. The aim of the tourney in Kozia > W?lka is to ensure that everybody spends a pleasant > evening. There is simply no such animal like the set of rules > appropriate for both of them. The pros want the laws > to be consistent, the rulings to very well thought out etc. > The club public wants - what the hell, give'em 60/60 > and let's move on. > > The current set of rules is way too complex for club > players and inadequate for the high level games. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Najlepsze oferty na mieszkania i domy! > Odwiedz>> http://linkint.pl/f29a9 > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3615 - Release Date: 05/04/11 > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Thu May 5 10:12:21 2011 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 09:12:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net><4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:12 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; > I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen > rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a > unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy > violates L41D. It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i don't like this) Sorry this is absurd If dummy fails to follow - this constitutes a revoke. The only issue is what rectification follows Mike _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu May 5 10:24:45 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:24:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> Message-ID: 2011/5/5 Mike Amos : > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:12 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands > > Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : >> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >>> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; >> I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. ?I've seen >> rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a >> unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy >> violates L41D. > > It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because > everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 > cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i > don't like this) > > Sorry this is absurd > > If dummy fails to follow - this constitutes a revoke. > > The only issue is what rectification follows True. L64B3 say there's no rectification for such a revoke. L64C still aplly though. Thus the TD, if necessary, awards an adjusted score to restore equity. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 5 11:50:55 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 11:50:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> Message-ID: <4DC272FF.5050401@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/05/2011 10:24, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2011/5/5 Mike Amos: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:12 PM >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands >> >> Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>>> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >>>> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; >>> I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen >>> rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a >>> unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy >>> violates L41D. >> It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because >> everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 >> cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i >> don't like this) >> >> Sorry this is absurd >> >> If dummy fails to follow - this constitutes a revoke. >> >> The only issue is what rectification follows > True. > L64B3 say there's no rectification for such a revoke. > L64C still aplly though. Thus the TD, if necessary, awards an adjusted > score to restore equity. > AG :didn't I write "and biased" ? Shortcuts of the law are dangerous. Happy to see that you agree, but no need to be rude. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu May 5 12:34:18 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 12:34:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <4DC272FF.5050401@ulb.ac.be> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> <4DC272FF.5050401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Den 5. mai 2011 11:50 skrev Alain Gottcheiner f?lgende: > Le 5/05/2011 10:24, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >> >> 2011/5/5 Mike Amos: >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alain Gottcheiner >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:12 PM >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands >>> >>> Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>>> >>>> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >>>>> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; >>>> >>>> I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. ?I've seen >>>> rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a >>>> unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy >>>> violates L41D. >>> >>> It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because >>> everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 >>> cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i >>> don't like this) >>> >>> Sorry this is absurd >>> >>> If dummy fails to follow - this constitutes a revoke. >>> >>> The only issue is what rectification follows >> >> True. >> L64B3 say there's no rectification for such a revoke. >> L64C still aplly though. Thus the TD, if necessary, awards an adjusted >> score to restore equity. >> > AG ?:didn't I write "and biased" ? Shortcuts of the law are dangerous. Happy > to see that you agree, but no need to be rude. > Huh? Can you please tell me what's rude in my contribution above, since I have absolutely no idea what you're aiming at. If you're comment is related to Mike's comment upthread, please make sure you reply to the post you're referring to in the future. I've made no comment to any of your posts. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From gampas at aol.com Thu May 5 12:39:01 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 11:39:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> <4DC272FF.5050401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DC27E45.6060200@aol.com> On 05/05/2011 11:34, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Den 5. mai 2011 11:50 skrev Alain Gottcheiner f?lgende: >> > Le 5/05/2011 10:24, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>> >> >>> >> 2011/5/5 Mike Amos: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>> From: Alain Gottcheiner >>>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:12 PM >>>> >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> >>> Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >>>>>> >>>>> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen >>>>> >>>> rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a >>>>> >>>> unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy >>>>> >>>> violates L41D. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because >>>> >>> everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 >>>> >>> cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i >>>> >>> don't like this) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sorry this is absurd >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If dummy fails to follow - this constitutes a revoke. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The only issue is what rectification follows >>> >> >>> >> True. >>> >> L64B3 say there's no rectification for such a revoke. >>> >> L64C still aplly though. Thus the TD, if necessary, awards an adjusted >>> >> score to restore equity. >>> >> >> > AG :didn't I write "and biased" ? Shortcuts of the law are dangerous. Happy >> > to see that you agree, but no need to be rude. >> > > Huh? > Can you please tell me what's rude in my contribution above, since I > have absolutely no idea what you're aiming at. > > If you're comment is related to Mike's comment upthread, please make > sure you reply to the post you're referring to in the future. > > I've made no comment to any of your posts. > > Perhaps AG is using rude in the sense "approximate and imprecise", as in the expression "a rude estimate". Indeed, following on from his statement, "Shortcuts of the law are dangerous", this would appear to be the case. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110505/3d7715fd/attachment.html From madam at civilradio.hu Thu May 5 13:14:17 2011 From: madam at civilradio.hu (=?iso-8859-2?B?TWFneWFyIMFk4W0=?=) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 13:14:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suggestion by...dummy Message-ID: Hi all, IMP pairs, very high level West is on lead, when south is playing a contract. There are two suits in dummy, and west's only logical play is to lead one of them. It seems, that all four players at the table are aware of this. At this point, dummy starts to move into played position a small card of one of the suits, apparently thinking that this will be the lead. What is your decision, if: a) West plays this suit, and this is the 1. winning lead (for the defense)? 2. loosing lead? b) West plays the other suit, and this is the 1. winning lead? 2. loosing lead? c) East, noticing that dummy is doing something, tells him not to suggest a bad lead to his partner. West plays the other suit, and this is the winning lead. d) Same as in c), but you only read it in a discussion on the web the day after, and you had no opportunity to ask the opponents. Thanks for your comments: Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110505/bc902b60/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu May 5 13:21:09 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 13:21:09 +0200 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency Message-ID: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> I have spent two days completing something I started momre than 10 years ago, but had to abandon due to insufficient computer capacity. With the most recent version of Excel, tables of 1 million records are possible, so I could do this - even if I needed in the end 1.5 million linnes (I had to split them into 3 tables). I now have full frequencies of the points in three (and hence four hands). I used it to calculate the following: Consider that I play, on average, something like 3 sessions a week, let's put it at 80 deals. That makes 4000 deals a year. On one quarter of that, 1000 deals, I am third in hand. I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points or less. So on 395 of my deals, partner deals and passes. On 9.49% of deals, neither first nor second hand has 12 points. So on 95 deals per year (2 per week), I am allowed to open in third hand. On 3.90% of the deals, third hand has 12 points or more. I get to open 39 deals, third in hand. However, there are also hands on which third hand has 3 points or less. This occurs in 0.19% of cases. Nice correspondence with my 2 psyches a year, which I may well be doing. If we consider that one fifth of the normal openings are of 1H, while most of the psyches will be in that suit, we find that the relative frequency of normal openings versus psyhes is something like 4 to 1. Amazing, isn't it? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu May 5 13:33:38 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 07:33:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency In-Reply-To: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> References: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: Amazing, isn't it? > Without going into the specifics of your argument, what I find truly amazing is that 1. Anyone would consider using Excel for operations with millions of records 2. You (apparently) never learned to use any of a variety of good deal generators to run a Monte Carlo simulation 3. You never considered solving this problem analytically -- 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/20110505/9b514a0b/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu May 5 14:06:05 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 08:06:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency In-Reply-To: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> References: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: FWIW, I spent significantly less that 10 years writing the following: action average hcp(north) <= 11, average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11, average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) >=12, average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) <=3 Upon running this through Dealer I received the following output .6517 .3767 .2049 .0048 I recommend that you recheck you're calculations / rethink your methods because > I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points or less is obviously wrong. On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I have spent two days completing something I started momre than 10 years > ago, but had to abandon due to insufficient computer capacity. > > With the most recent version of Excel, tables of 1 million records are > possible, so I could do this - even if I needed in the end 1.5 million > linnes (I had to split them into 3 tables). > > I now have full frequencies of the points in three (and hence four hands). > > I used it to calculate the following: > > Consider that I play, on average, something like 3 sessions a week, > let's put it at 80 deals. That makes 4000 deals a year. > > On one quarter of that, 1000 deals, I am third in hand. > > I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points or > less. So on 395 of my deals, partner deals and passes. > > On 9.49% of deals, neither first nor second hand has 12 points. So on 95 > deals per year (2 per week), I am allowed to open in third hand. > > On 3.90% of the deals, third hand has 12 points or more. I get to open > 39 deals, third in hand. > However, there are also hands on which third hand has 3 points or less. > This occurs in 0.19% of cases. Nice correspondence with my 2 psyches a > year, which I may well be doing. > > If we consider that one fifth of the normal openings are of 1H, while > most of the psyches will be in that suit, we find that the relative > frequency of normal openings versus psyhes is something like 4 to 1. > > Amazing, isn't it? > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek Those were simpler times -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110505/eb9b8d3c/attachment.html From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Thu May 5 14:08:15 2011 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 14:08:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110505120845.5FD44485C136@relay2.webreus.nl> Treating the honest player and the cheat alike may be labeled "treating the honest player as a cheat" or "treating the cheat as an honest player", but essentially there is no difference :-) Abolishing L62A means we tell the (honest) players is it OK to hide a revoke even when discovered before the revoke is established. I don't think that would be good for the game as it would mean artificial scores, in cases that could have been corrected in a more satisfactory way. At 12:00 5-5-2011, Herman De Wael wrote: >The problem with that view is best illustrated with this case: >no-one would doubt the honesty of the player involved, yet the >strange facts of the case mean we should treat the honest player as a cheat. >I'd rather treat the "cheat" as an honest player, even a very clever one. > >There is an analogy here to something you might not immediately >consider an analogy. >Let's pretend that we'd want to treat bidding on after an >insufficient call an irregularity. Now sometimes, an innocent player >will bid without noticing that the previous call was insufficient. >Now we'd might want to rule against this gentleman, but perhaps we >feel sorry for his inadvertency. So we allow his bid to stand >without penalty. And then, once in a while he benefits from this. Do >we now turn back our original ruling and rule against him? No we >don't. We tell his opponents "rub of the green" and him "don't do it >again". Yet when he does do it again, we can never be certain of his >inadvertency. So we decide not to allow the acceptance, just so that >he cannot hide his deliberate bidding. And then we are ruling >against honest gentleman also. >Better is it to simply allow to all what an inattentive player might >do inadveertently. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 5 14:57:21 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 14:57:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency In-Reply-To: References: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DC29EB1.3060308@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/05/2011 14:06, richard willey a ?crit : > FWIW, I spent significantly less that 10 years writing the following: > > action > > average hcp(north) <= 11, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) >=12, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) <=3 > > Upon running this through Dealer I received the following output > > .6517 > .3767 > .2049 > .0048 > > I recommend that you recheck you're calculations / rethink your > methods because > > > I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points or > less Richard's figure seems right. (and IOTTMCO it should be above 50%) My own statistics show that 1st hand opens the bidding about 46% of the time in a moderately aggressive style. The difference, of course, is all those preempts, and 10-11 pt hands considered worth an opening. > > is obviously wrong. > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > I have spent two days completing something I started momre than 10 > years > ago, but had to abandon due to insufficient computer capacity. > > With the most recent version of Excel, tables of 1 million records are > possible, so I could do this - even if I needed in the end 1.5 million > linnes (I had to split them into 3 tables). > > I now have full frequencies of the points in three (and hence four > hands). > > I used it to calculate the following: > > Consider that I play, on average, something like 3 sessions a week, > let's put it at 80 deals. That makes 4000 deals a year. > > On one quarter of that, 1000 deals, I am third in hand. > > I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points or > less. So on 395 of my deals, partner deals and passes. > > On 9.49% of deals, neither first nor second hand has 12 points. So > on 95 > deals per year (2 per week), I am allowed to open in third hand. > > On 3.90% of the deals, third hand has 12 points or more. I get to open > 39 deals, third in hand. > However, there are also hands on which third hand has 3 points or > less. > This occurs in 0.19% of cases. Nice correspondence with my 2 psyches a > year, which I may well be doing. > > If we consider that one fifth of the normal openings are of 1H, while > most of the psyches will be in that suit, we find that the relative > frequency of normal openings versus psyhes is something like 4 to 1. > > Amazing, isn't it? > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > I think back to the halcyon dates of my youth, when indeterminate > Hessians had something to do with the Revolutionary War, where > conjugate priors were monks who had broken their vows, and the > expression (X'X)^-1(X'Y) was greek > > Those were simpler times > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110505/aedfa023/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 5 14:51:55 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 14:51:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suggestion by...dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DC29D6B.5050707@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/05/2011 13:14, Magyar ?d?m a ?crit : > > Hi all, > > IMP pairs, very high level > > West is on lead, when south is playing a contract. There are two suits > in dummy, and west's only logical play is to lead one of them. It > seems, that all four players at the table are aware of this. At this > point, dummy starts to move into played position a small card of one > of the suits, apparently thinking that this will be the lead. > Hi Adam. seems like d) was the case you faced. > > What is your decision, if: > > a)West plays this suit, and this is the > > 1.winning lead (for the defense)? > > 2.loosing lead? > If that's the only logical possibility, what's the heck ? > b)West plays the other suit, and this is the > > 1.winning lead? > > 2.loosing lead? > You mean West plays in a totally illogical way ? His problem. In a) and b), as stated, there is no reason to suspect that dummy's mannerism had any influence on West's play. > c)East, noticing that dummy is doing something, tells him not to > suggest a bad lead to his partner. West plays the other suit, and this > is the winning lead. > East could complain about dummy's mannerisms, but only to the TD. His way of doing so was improper, and it might have influenced West : I could consider it as illicit communication. But the whole problem is strange : one suit is the only logical play and the other is the winning play ; is that possible ? > > d)Same as in c), but you only read it in a discussion on the web the > day after, and you had no opportunity to ask the opponents. > This depends on the CoC, but I suppose you might conduct a formal hearing. I wouldn't be too harsh on EW, though, because East's reaction, albeit improper, was natural. Best regards Alain > Thanks for your comments: > > Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110505/eb04d1fe/attachment-0001.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 5 15:42:31 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 09:42:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <68D1C27D-7B48-4215-9512-FA039FF27C84@starpower.net> On May 4, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; > > I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen > rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there > was a > unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if > dummy > violates L41D. There's obviously no unanimous consensus on the original question, as I wrote the above in reply to Robert's questioning whether "spreading" one's cards with only twelve showing is in fact a violation of L41D. I do believe that the view I expressed is a relatively common one (at least in ACBL-land), and that (ACBL) TDs frequently (as Steve notes) rule on that basis. I also believe that it is "extra-legal", which I would have thought to be at least a mildly pejorative description in a Bridge Laws forum. I did suggest that the authors of TFLB might have had something like this "principle" in mind when they wrote the words that left room for this particular ambiguity in L41D, and that if one favored such an approach one might justify it legally by way of L12C1(b). My intent was to help inform the discussion by offering history, not advocacy. I stand by my belief that the idea that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy", right or wrong, good or bad, is out there, and that the authors of TFLB could not have been unaware of it. As to whether it is right or wrong, or good or bad, I can be sure that Steve does not know which I favor, as I have not yet figured it out for myself -- and look to the ongoing discussion in this forum to help clarify my thinking. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 5 16:02:16 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:02:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <4DC25016.60508@skynet.be> References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1><4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> <8D1A16A90D874595ADCCC8179AB16054@sfora4869e47f1> <4DC25016.60508@skynet.be> Message-ID: On May 5, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > And tell me, Konrad, where you draw the line? Is the final of the > Polish > championship more like the Bermuda Bowl or more like Podunk Hollow? > What > about the Mixed pairs championship of Antwerp (at which i came third > yesterday)? > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> I firmly believe that there should be different set of laws for >> high level games and for club level tournaments. >> I think it is insane to play the final of the Bermuda Bowl >> under the same rules as the tournament in Podunk Hollow. >> >> As the matter of fact those two tournaments are already >> played under different laws though formally the Law Book >> is identical for both of them and the rules are the same. >> >> So let's get rif of the fiction.The main purpose of high >> level tournaments is to identify the winner - all other >> aims are secondary. The aim of the tourney in Kozia >> W?lka is to ensure that everybody spends a pleasant >> evening. There is simply no such animal like the set of rules >> appropriate for both of them. The pros want the laws >> to be consistent, the rulings to very well thought out etc. >> The club public wants - what the hell, give'em 60/60 >> and let's move on. >> >> The current set of rules is way too complex for club >> players and inadequate for the high level games. You let each tournament decide for itself. WTP? Every tournament now provides (to the extent it chooses) its own unique conditions of contest. If there were two sets of laws for different levels of play, which one applied would simply be one of those chosen conditions. I suppose it would behoove the authorities to specify the default (presumably the lower-level option) that would apply if the CoC doesn't specify. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu May 5 17:16:49 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:16:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <68D1C27D-7B48-4215-9512-FA039FF27C84@starpower.net> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> , <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net>, <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net>, <68D1C27D-7B48-4215-9512-FA039FF27C84@starpower.net> Message-ID: > From: ehaa at starpower.net > Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 09:42:31 -0400 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands > > On May 4, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Steve Willner wrote: > > > On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle > >> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; > > > > I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen > > rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there > > was a > > unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if > > dummy > > violates L41D. > > There's obviously no unanimous consensus on the original question, as > I wrote the above in reply to Robert's questioning whether > "spreading" one's cards with only twelve showing is in fact a > violation of L41D. I do believe that the view I expressed is a > relatively common one (at least in ACBL-land), and that (ACBL) TDs > frequently (as Steve notes) rule on that basis. I also believe that > it is "extra-legal", which I would have thought to be at least a > mildly pejorative description in a Bridge Laws forum. I did suggest > that the authors of TFLB might have had something like this > "principle" in mind when they wrote the words that left room for this > particular ambiguity in L41D, and that if one favored such an > approach one might justify it legally by way of L12C1(b). > > My intent was to help inform the discussion by offering history, not > advocacy. I stand by my belief that the idea that "everyone at the > table is responsible for the dummy", right or wrong, good or bad, is > out there, and that the authors of TFLB could not have been unaware > of it. As to whether it is right or wrong, or good or bad, I can be > sure that Steve does not know which I favor, as I have not yet > figured it out for myself -- and look to the ongoing discussion in > this forum to help clarify my thinking. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net It appears that the law does not ascribe responsibility for misunderstandings [such as misunderstanding that induce otherwise silly play and infractions that have serious ramifications] arising from cards in dummy being ?hidden?. While it does instigate arguments, disputes, and heated litigation due to the presence of, for instance, L11. The normal way for law to attach responsibility to create motivation. The incentive that the law does provide is for dummy and declarer to be sloppy in the things they do. Examples can be seen in L64B3 and L48A. And as these rules have been subjected to scrutiny many times over the decades and remain on the books there is a presumption that the consequences arising therefrom are the desired consequences- in spite of the kinds of bickering going on in threads like this. In all likelihood, if say the declaring side [declarer and dummy] would be subject to PCs and revoke penalties there is a strong likelihood that a consequence would be that dummy?s cards would be accounted for toot sweet. regards roger pewick From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu May 5 17:42:27 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 17:42:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> , <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net>, <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net>, <68D1C27D-7B48-4215-9512-FA039FF27C84@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DC2C563.6030708@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/05/2011 17:16, Roger Pewick a ?crit : > > > >> From: ehaa at starpower.net >> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 09:42:31 -0400 >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands >> >> On May 4, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>>> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >>>> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; >>> I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen >>> rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there >>> was a >>> unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if >>> dummy >>> violates L41D. >> There's obviously no unanimous consensus on the original question, as >> I wrote the above in reply to Robert's questioning whether >> "spreading" one's cards with only twelve showing is in fact a >> violation of L41D. I do believe that the view I expressed is a >> relatively common one (at least in ACBL-land), and that (ACBL) TDs >> frequently (as Steve notes) rule on that basis. I also believe that >> it is "extra-legal", which I would have thought to be at least a >> mildly pejorative description in a Bridge Laws forum. I did suggest >> that the authors of TFLB might have had something like this >> "principle" in mind when they wrote the words that left room for this >> particular ambiguity in L41D, and that if one favored such an >> approach one might justify it legally by way of L12C1(b). >> >> My intent was to help inform the discussion by offering history, not >> advocacy. I stand by my belief that the idea that "everyone at the >> table is responsible for the dummy", right or wrong, good or bad, is >> out there, and that the authors of TFLB could not have been unaware >> of it. As to whether it is right or wrong, or good or bad, I can be >> sure that Steve does not know which I favor, as I have not yet >> figured it out for myself -- and look to the ongoing discussion in >> this forum to help clarify my thinking. >> >> >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net > It appears that the law does not ascribe responsibility for misunderstandings [such as misunderstanding that induce otherwise silly play and infractions that have serious ramifications] arising from cards in dummy being ?hidden?. While it does instigate arguments, disputes, and heated litigation due to the presence of, for instance, L11. > > The normal way for law to attach responsibility to create motivation. The incentive that the law does provide is for dummy and declarer to be sloppy in the things they do. Examples can be seen in L64B3 and L48A. And as these rules have been subjected to scrutiny many times over the decades and remain on the books there is a presumption that the consequences arising therefrom are the desired consequences- in spite of the kinds of bickering going on in threads like this. > > In all likelihood, if say the declaring side [declarer and dummy] would be subject to PCs and revoke penalties there is a strong likelihood that a consequence would be that dummy?s cards would be accounted for toot sweet. > AG : I think that you're reading a bit much in the intent of the Laws. The reason why declarer's side doesn't get any penalty cards is that penalty cards are seen as a nuisance only because they inform partner by undesired ways. Since declarer has nobody to inform, there might be exposed cards, but no atached penalties. And the fact that an exposed card helps the opposition seems enough to discourage declarer from exposing them. Of course, there might exist specific cases. For example, a declarer who has shown 65 in two suits (but in fact holds only 55) might be tempted into exposing two cards in a third suit to make his opponents believe he's void in the last suit. But L73 deals with this. The same holds for revokes : a revoke is a serious offence because it will usually go unnoticed before it's too late to save the deal. This isn't the case when dummy revokes. If dummy has only twelve cards and you (as a defender) don't mention it, you're gambling that it will help you (declarer taking the wrong line perhaps). If it hurts you, you've lost. Best regards Alain From hegelaci at cs.elte.hu Thu May 5 21:58:54 2011 From: hegelaci at cs.elte.hu (Laszlo Hegedus) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 21:58:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suggestion by...dummy In-Reply-To: <4DC29D6B.5050707@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DC29D6B.5050707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DC3017E.3060405@cs.elte.hu> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 5/05/2011 13:14, Magyar ?d?m a ?crit : >> >> Hi all, >> >> IMP pairs, very high level >> >> West is on lead, when south is playing a contract. There are two >> suits in dummy, and west?s only logical play is to lead one of them. >> It seems, that all four players at the table are aware of this. At >> this point, dummy starts to move into played position a small card of >> one of the suits, apparently thinking that this will be the lead. >> > > Hi Adam. seems like d) was the case you faced. >> >> What is your decision, if: >> >> a) West plays this suit, and this is the >> >> 1. winning lead (for the defense)? >> >> 2. loosing lead? >> > If that's the only logical possibility, what's the heck ? It seems you misunderstood Adam: "and west?s only logical play is to lead ONE of them" For me it was clear, cos I speak the same language as ?d?m. I'm not sure he was right or wrong, but the corect english form can be: "and west?s only logical play is to lead ANY of them (not the other 2 suits)" > >> b) West plays the other suit, and this is the >> >> 1. winning lead? >> >> 2. loosing lead? >> > You mean West plays in a totally illogical way ? His problem. > > In a) and b), as stated, there is no reason to suspect that dummy's > mannerism had any influence on West's play. > >> c) East, noticing that dummy is doing something, tells him not to >> suggest a bad lead to his partner. West plays the other suit, and >> this is the winning lead. >> > > East could complain about dummy's mannerisms, but only to the TD. His > way of doing so was improper, and it might have influenced West : I > could consider it as illicit communication. > > But the whole problem is strange : one suit is the only logical play > and the other is the winning play ; is that possible ? >> >> d) Same as in c), but you only read it in a discussion on the web the >> day after, and you had no opportunity to ask the opponents. >> > > This depends on the CoC, but I suppose you might conduct a formal > hearing. I wouldn't be too harsh on EW, though, because East's > reaction, albeit improper, was natural. > > > Best regards > > > Alain > >> Thanks for your comments: >> >> Adam >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Cibor at poczta.fm Thu May 5 18:05:50 2011 From: Cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 18:05:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened Message-ID: "Eric Landau" pisze: > On May 5, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > And tell me, Konrad, where you draw the line? Is the final of the > > Polish > > championship more like the Bermuda Bowl or more like Podunk Hollow? > > What > > about the Mixed pairs championship of Antwerp (at which i came third > > yesterday)? > > > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > >> I firmly believe that there should be different set of laws for > >> high level games and for club level tournaments. > >> I think it is insane to play the final of the Bermuda Bowl > >> under the same rules as the tournament in Podunk Hollow. > >> > >> As the matter of fact those two tournaments are already > >> played under different laws though formally the Law Book > >> is identical for both of them and the rules are the same. > >> > >> So let's get rif of the fiction.The main purpose of high > >> level tournaments is to identify the winner - all other > >> aims are secondary. The aim of the tourney in Kozia > >> W?lka is to ensure that everybody spends a pleasant > >> evening. There is simply no such animal like the set of rules > >> appropriate for both of them. The pros want the laws > >> to be consistent, the rulings to very well thought out etc. > >> The club public wants - what the hell, give'em 60/60 > >> and let's move on. > >> > >> The current set of rules is way too complex for club > >> players and inadequate for the high level games. > > You let each tournament decide for itself. WTP? I don't know but appearently there _is_ a problem because for reasons uknown TD at a Podunk Hollow tournament is obliged to read out 17 options after a lead out of turn. He also must investigate the relative relashionship between two bids (in case of insufficient bids), he must carefully differentiate between the damage from an infraction and self inflicted damage, be able to decide if a play or bid was irrational, wild or gambling etc. Which club TD is able to do that anyway? This is insane. What not rule 60/60 instead? Right now a club doesn't have the option of dropping half the lawbook. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Matura 2011 - mamy wyniki z matematyki! Sprawdz >>> http://linkint.pl/f29b0 From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu May 5 18:06:56 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 18:06:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] suggestion by...dummy In-Reply-To: <4DC3017E.3060405@cs.elte.hu> References: <4DC29D6B.5050707@ulb.ac.be> <4DC3017E.3060405@cs.elte.hu> Message-ID: <4DC2CB20.7090905@aol.com> As a native English speaker and ex-teacher of English, translator and copy reader: Adam's formulation is okay. No problem understanding it for a native speaker. Yes, it could have either of two meanings but this happens in English. He could write "only one of them" if he wanted to emphasise this meaning. But something else, dear to the heart of every pedant: "lose", not "loose" is the form you want. "Loose" has a quite different meaning. And while I am being pedantic: another thread was entitled something like "dummy exposing his hands". Why "hands"? Per board he only has one. So why the plural? Ciao, JE Am 05.05.2011 21:58, schrieb Laszlo Hegedus: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> Le 5/05/2011 13:14, Magyar ?d?m a ?crit : >>> Hi all, >>> >>> IMP pairs, very high level >>> >>> West is on lead, when south is playing a contract. There are two >>> suits in dummy, and west?s only logical play is to lead one of them. >>> It seems, that all four players at the table are aware of this. At >>> this point, dummy starts to move into played position a small card of >>> one of the suits, apparently thinking that this will be the lead. >>> >> Hi Adam. seems like d) was the case you faced. >>> What is your decision, if: >>> >>> a) West plays this suit, and this is the >>> >>> 1. winning lead (for the defense)? >>> >>> 2. loosing lead? >>> >> If that's the only logical possibility, what's the heck ? > It seems you misunderstood Adam: "and west?s only logical play is to > lead ONE of them" > For me it was clear, cos I speak the same language as ?d?m. I'm not sure > he was right or wrong, but the corect english form can be: "and west?s > only logical play is to lead ANY of them (not the other 2 suits)" > >>> b) West plays the other suit, and this is the >>> >>> 1. winning lead? >>> >>> 2. loosing lead? >>> >> You mean West plays in a totally illogical way ? His problem. >> >> In a) and b), as stated, there is no reason to suspect that dummy's >> mannerism had any influence on West's play. >> >>> c) East, noticing that dummy is doing something, tells him not to >>> suggest a bad lead to his partner. West plays the other suit, and >>> this is the winning lead. >>> >> East could complain about dummy's mannerisms, but only to the TD. His >> way of doing so was improper, and it might have influenced West : I >> could consider it as illicit communication. >> >> But the whole problem is strange : one suit is the only logical play >> and the other is the winning play ; is that possible ? >>> d) Same as in c), but you only read it in a discussion on the web the >>> day after, and you had no opportunity to ask the opponents. >>> >> This depends on the CoC, but I suppose you might conduct a formal >> hearing. I wouldn't be too harsh on EW, though, because East's >> reaction, albeit improper, was natural. >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Alain >> >>> Thanks for your comments: >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 5 19:58:23 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 13:58:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net><4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> Message-ID: On May 5, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Mike Amos wrote: > Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : > >> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >>> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; >> >> I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen >> rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there >> was a >> unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if >> dummy >> violates L41D. > > It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because > everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 > cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i > don't like this) > > Sorry this is absurd > > If dummy fails to follow - this constitutes a revoke. > > The only issue is what rectification follows That applies equally to the original thread case. If dummy puts down his cards with one or more of them hidden -- this constitutes an irregularity. The only issue is what rectification [if any] follows. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 5 20:19:33 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:19:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] suggestion by...dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9758AA38-18BB-444D-AB3C-0801B144E98E@starpower.net> On May 5, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Magyar ?d?m wrote: > IMP pairs, very high level > > West is on lead, when south is playing a contract. There are two > suits in dummy, and west?s only logical play is to lead one of > them. It seems, that all four players at the table are aware of > this. At this point, dummy starts to move into played position a > small card of one of the suits, apparently thinking that this will > be the lead. > > What is your decision, if: > > a) West plays this suit, and this is the > > 1. winning lead (for the defense)? > > 2. loosing lead? > > b) West plays the other suit, and this is the > > 1. winning lead? > > 2. loosing lead? > Nothing to adjudicate. There's no infraction in using extraneous information if it comes from an opponent, even were West to have done so. And on the description (I wasn't there), dummy's action seems only to have predicted which suit West would lead without providing any indication as to whether he thought that to be the winning or losing play (or had an opinion on the matter), so there's no L73F issue either. > c) East, noticing that dummy is doing something, tells him > not to suggest a bad lead to his partner. West plays the other > suit, and this is the winning lead. > This we adjudicate. East could have gotten away with simply telling dummy not to anticipate declarer's call for a card from dummy, but if he used the words "bad lead" he is clearly suggesting which suit he would prefer West to play. That's a L73B1 violation. > d) Same as in c), but you only read it in a discussion on the > web the day after, and you had no opportunity to ask the opponents. > That one depends on the local conditions of contest, or, if the default provision of L92B applies, on when the scores were made available for your inspection, whether you actually looked at them then or not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 5 20:44:34 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:44:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E01C9C3-BD80-4419-90B2-5F49C73A3607@starpower.net> On May 5, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > "Eric Landau" pisze: > >> On May 5, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> And tell me, Konrad, where you draw the line? Is the final of the >>> Polish >>> championship more like the Bermuda Bowl or more like Podunk Hollow? >>> What >>> about the Mixed pairs championship of Antwerp (at which i came third >>> yesterday)? >>> >>> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >>> >>>> I firmly believe that there should be different set of laws for >>>> high level games and for club level tournaments. >>>> I think it is insane to play the final of the Bermuda Bowl >>>> under the same rules as the tournament in Podunk Hollow. >>>> >>>> As the matter of fact those two tournaments are already >>>> played under different laws though formally the Law Book >>>> is identical for both of them and the rules are the same. >>>> >>>> So let's get rif of the fiction.The main purpose of high >>>> level tournaments is to identify the winner - all other >>>> aims are secondary. The aim of the tourney in Kozia >>>> W?lka is to ensure that everybody spends a pleasant >>>> evening. There is simply no such animal like the set of rules >>>> appropriate for both of them. The pros want the laws >>>> to be consistent, the rulings to very well thought out etc. >>>> The club public wants - what the hell, give'em 60/60 >>>> and let's move on. >>>> >>>> The current set of rules is way too complex for club >>>> players and inadequate for the high level games. >> >> You let each tournament decide for itself. WTP? > > I don't know but appearently there _is_ a problem because > for reasons uknown TD at a Podunk Hollow tournament > is obliged to read out 17 options after a lead out > of turn. He also must investigate the relative relashionship > between two bids (in case of insufficient bids), he must > carefully differentiate between the damage from an infraction > and self inflicted damage, be able to decide if a play or bid > was irrational, wild or gambling etc. > > Which club TD is able to do that anyway? This is insane. > What not rule 60/60 instead? > > Right now a club doesn't have the option of dropping half the > lawbook. Sorry, Konrad, if I wasn't clear. The line you cite above was a reply to Herman's question: if you did have two lawbooks, one for high-level play and the other for pleasant evenings, how would you know which one to use in a given event ("draw the line")? The answer is that event organizers get to decide case by case (WTP?). So the Podunk Hollow TD would, under your proposal, get to read out those 17 options only if that's what the Podunk Hollow club wants him to do. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu May 5 20:52:37 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:52:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency In-Reply-To: References: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <553BA367-5A61-4D69-B151-D1B1DE08A095@starpower.net> On May 5, 2011, at 8:06 AM, richard willey wrote: > FWIW, I spent significantly less that 10 years writing the following: > > action > > average hcp(north) <= 11, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) >=12, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) <=3 > > Upon running this through Dealer I received the following output > > .6517 > .3767 > .2049 > .0048 > > I recommend that you recheck you're calculations / rethink your > methods because > > > I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points > or less > > is obviously wrong. > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > I have spent two days completing something I started momre than 10 > years > ago, but had to abandon due to insufficient computer capacity. > > With the most recent version of Excel, tables of 1 million records are > possible, so I could do this - even if I needed in the end 1.5 million > linnes (I had to split them into 3 tables). > > I now have full frequencies of the points in three (and hence four > hands). > > I used it to calculate the following: > > Consider that I play, on average, something like 3 sessions a week, > let's put it at 80 deals. That makes 4000 deals a year. > > On one quarter of that, 1000 deals, I am third in hand. > > I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points or > less. So on 395 of my deals, partner deals and passes. > > On 9.49% of deals, neither first nor second hand has 12 points. So > on 95 > deals per year (2 per week), I am allowed to open in third hand. > > On 3.90% of the deals, third hand has 12 points or more. I get to open > 39 deals, third in hand. > However, there are also hands on which third hand has 3 points or > less. > This occurs in 0.19% of cases. Nice correspondence with my 2 psyches a > year, which I may well be doing. > > If we consider that one fifth of the normal openings are of 1H, while > most of the psyches will be in that suit, we find that the relative > frequency of normal openings versus psyhes is something like 4 to 1. > > Amazing, isn't it? Amazing or not -- correct or not -- what this really is is entirely irrelevant. The illegality of the so-called "Herman 1H" derives from the (known) likelihood of Herman's making the bid when he holds the particular (known) hand on which he likes to make it, and nothing at all to do with the likelihood of his being dealt such a hand. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 6 03:13:09 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:13:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] We have met the enemy and he is us [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DAC0082.4030209@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Michael Quinion: [big snip] Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. Alain Gottcheiner: AG : I agree with all that. In fact, I used Mr. Quinion's article in a seminar about scientific reasoning quite a few times. Now would you please answer my question : does this apply to TFLB, i.e. is any statement that you can't do X at time Y imply that you can do X at other times ? [snip] Law 74C8: "The following are examples of violations of procedure: leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." Richard Hills: One prolific blmler has consistently argued that simplifying the Lawbook is necessarily beneficial. The Lawbook would indeed be simpler if Law 74C8 was abolished, but that abolition would not be beneficial to the game of Duplicate Bridge. In another thread it has been correctly argued that a hypothetical Law which penalises the vast majority of honest players to make life more difficult for cheats is undesirable. But Law 74C8 leaves the vast majority of honest players unaffected while making life more difficult for cheats who attempt to "cop a board". But to answer Alain Gottcheiner's question. It is undeniably illegal under Law 74C8 to intentionally observe the auction and/or play at another table before the round is called. However, that does not mean that it suddenly becomes legal to intentionally observe the auction and/or play at another table at the moment the round is called. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110506/6f81c91e/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 6 03:42:51 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 11:42:51 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Washington NABC+ cases posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: When faced with conflicting testimony, the Best way to judge Any set of disputed facts is to question the players at the table. The Law 85 criterion is "balance of probabilities", Not "guilty until proved innocent". Adam Wildavsky, third thoughts: ??? Sorry to take a while to reply, though I doubt it's a BLML record. Might not be a record even for me! Your proposal sounds tautological to me. The premise is that the testimony conflicts. Do you propose to resolve that conflict with further questions? If you do, more power to you. Suppose, however, that after further questioning the conflict remains. The question I was answering was exactly the one I expressed -- how to proceed in the face of?conflicting testimony.?In that case I still suggest looking for evidence from the cards themselves, if any is to be had. Richard Hills: A series of Appeals Committee articles written by Edgar Kaplan for The Bridge World in the early 1980s are now partially obsolete, due to substantial changes between the 1975 and 2007 Lawbooks. However, Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) has changed only in detail, not in principle, thus Kaplan's article on this Law is still highly relevant. Kaplan's key anti-Wildavsky point is that not all conflicting testimony is equally credible. Indeed, Kaplan notes that when three of the players testify one way, with merely one testifying the other way, the Appeals Committee may legitimately have a Highlander moment (There Can Be Only One) and rule in accordance with the credible solo testimony. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110506/a40a1f43/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 6 04:13:15 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:13:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DC29EB1.3060308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: My own statistics show that 1st hand opens the bidding about 46% of the time in a moderately aggressive style. The difference, of course, is all those preempts, and 10-11 pt hands considered worth an opening. Richard Hills: My own belief is that Herman De Wael's conservative style (1st hand tends to pass with 11 hcp) and Alain Gottcheiner's moderately aggressive style are both losing styles. Barry Crane did not gain zillions of ACBL masterpoints merely by bunny-bashing. Rather, Barry Crane understood the fundamental advantage of an ultra-aggressive style, opening at the one level in first or second seat as often as possible. In effect, Crane's one-bids were low-level preempts. (This principle is well-known by Acol theorists, one of whom described the weak 1NT as a cheap preempt). Thus Ali-Hills (almost) always open 1D, 1H, 1S, 2C and 2D with merely 10 hcp and (almost) always open 1NT with 11 hcp. Unlike Herman, I have not recorded our results on an Excel spreadsheet, but I recall many partscore and game swings gained by this Crane-ish ultra-aggressive style vis-a-vis more conservative opponents at the other table, with very few counterbalancing -1400 penalties. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110506/7b5f75ab/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 6 09:47:12 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:47:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands In-Reply-To: References: <000f01cc05d8$8b8dc2a0$a2a947e0$@no> <3DA07813-957E-482A-84DB-9F0907DD02E2@starpower.net> <4DC161E8.6090606@nhcc.net> <4DC16CC9.9090108@ulb.ac.be> <8F6CE5576326497CBCE5AE79DD6294A2@mikePC> <4DC272FF.5050401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DC3A780.4060600@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/05/2011 12:34, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > Den 5. mai 2011 11:50 skrev Alain Gottcheiner f?lgende: >> Le 5/05/2011 10:24, Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : >>> 2011/5/5 Mike Amos: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Alain Gottcheiner >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:12 PM >>>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands >>>> >>>> Le 4/05/2011 16:25, Steve Willner a ?crit : >>>>> On 5/2/2011 10:12 AM, Eric Landau wrote: >>>>>> it is a long established, if technically extra-legal, principle >>>>>> that "everyone at the table is responsible for the dummy"; >>>>> I am astonished that Eric, of all people, believes this. I've seen >>>>> rulings in the ACBL based on this "principle," but I thought there was a >>>>> unanimous consensus on BLML that opponents should be protected if dummy >>>>> violates L41D. >>>> It's probably the (simplified and biased) way to explain that, because >>>> everybody sees dummy's cards and may let notice that there are only 12 >>>> cards, dummy's not following suit won't be considered a revoke. (and i >>>> don't like this) >>>> >>>> Sorry this is absurd >>>> >>>> If dummy fails to follow - this constitutes a revoke. >>>> >>>> The only issue is what rectification follows >>> True. >>> L64B3 say there's no rectification for such a revoke. >>> L64C still aplly though. Thus the TD, if necessary, awards an adjusted >>> score to restore equity. >>> >> AG :didn't I write "and biased" ? Shortcuts of the law are dangerous. Happy >> to see that you agree, but no need to be rude. >> > Huh? > Can you please tell me what's rude in my contribution above, since I > have absolutely no idea what you're aiming at. > > If you're comment is related to Mike's comment upthread, please make > sure you reply to the post you're referring to in the future. > Well, Harald, unless i'm badly mistaken I didn't respond to your post but to Mike's. Sorry if blml's complexities made it that it seemed to come in your direction. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 6 09:59:04 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 09:59:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <20110505120845.5FD44485C136@relay2.webreus.nl> References: <20110505120845.5FD44485C136@relay2.webreus.nl> Message-ID: <4DC3AA48.7000204@skynet.be> Peter Smulders wrote: > Treating the honest player and the cheat alike may be labeled > "treating the honest player as a cheat" or "treating the cheat as an > honest player", but essentially there is no difference :-) > Well, there is, of course. Treating an honest player as a cheat is something we may wish to avoid. The opposite is also avoided, by labeling the cheat not a cheat but allowing what he may wish to do. In the present case, everyone is a cheat - both the cheat and the honest player, who will be treated as one. In the alternative, no-one is a cheat, since we allow the thing in the first place. > Abolishing L62A means we tell the (honest) players is it OK to hide a > revoke even when discovered before the revoke is established. I don't > think that would be good for the game as it would mean artificial > scores, in cases that could have been corrected in a more satisfactory way. > I don't understand this argument - are you calling the awarding of a penalty trick for an established revoke an artificial score? I certainly don't. OTOH, if you are going to award "the score that would be achieved had the player changed his established revoke into a non-established one", including having to decide how the penalty card might affect the play, an artificial score. And if you consider the penalty artificial, then still there is no-one who wished to refuse a player to recognize his revoke and make it non-established. Herman. > At 12:00 5-5-2011, Herman De Wael wrote: >> The problem with that view is best illustrated with this case: >> no-one would doubt the honesty of the player involved, yet the >> strange facts of the case mean we should treat the honest player as a cheat. >> I'd rather treat the "cheat" as an honest player, even a very clever one. >> >> There is an analogy here to something you might not immediately >> consider an analogy. >> Let's pretend that we'd want to treat bidding on after an >> insufficient call an irregularity. Now sometimes, an innocent player >> will bid without noticing that the previous call was insufficient. >> Now we'd might want to rule against this gentleman, but perhaps we >> feel sorry for his inadvertency. So we allow his bid to stand >> without penalty. And then, once in a while he benefits from this. Do >> we now turn back our original ruling and rule against him? No we >> don't. We tell his opponents "rub of the green" and him "don't do it >> again". Yet when he does do it again, we can never be certain of his >> inadvertency. So we decide not to allow the acceptance, just so that >> he cannot hide his deliberate bidding. And then we are ruling >> against honest gentleman also. >> Better is it to simply allow to all what an inattentive player might >> do inadveertently. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3616 - Release Date: 05/04/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 6 10:02:17 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 10:02:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1><4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> <8D1A16A90D874595ADCCC8179AB16054@sfora4869e47f1> <4DC25016.60508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DC3AB09.8030900@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On May 5, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> And tell me, Konrad, where you draw the line? Is the final of the >> Polish >> championship more like the Bermuda Bowl or more like Podunk Hollow? >> What >> about the Mixed pairs championship of Antwerp (at which i came third >> yesterday)? >> > > You let each tournament decide for itself. WTP? Every tournament > now provides (to the extent it chooses) its own unique conditions of > contest. If there were two sets of laws for different levels of > play, which one applied would simply be one of those chosen > conditions. I suppose it would behoove the authorities to specify > the default (presumably the lower-level option) that would apply if > the CoC doesn't specify. > So presumably both the Polish championship and the Antwerp Mixed Pairs will choose to be top tournaments, as would most of the tournaments directed by serious IDs. The bottom tournaments are run without TDs, and they don't need any laws anyway - so why not just leave them sith the same laws? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 6 10:08:36 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 10:08:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency In-Reply-To: References: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DC3AC84.6060807@skynet.be> richard willey wrote: > > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > Amazing, isn't it? > > > Without going into the specifics of your argument, what I find truly > amazing is that > > 1. Anyone would consider using Excel for operations with millions of > records I have no database program at my disposal. > 2. You (apparently) never learned to use any of a variety of good deal > generators to run a Monte Carlo simulation I have calculated real probabilities, not simulated ones. > 3. You never considered solving this problem analytically > The frequency distribution of the Goren count of one hand? I presume that could be done. But of two hands? Three? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri May 6 10:31:09 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:31:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency In-Reply-To: References: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <180299AB-3F34-494A-925B-4AC25BDEF589@btinternet.com> On 5 May 2011, at 13:06, richard willey wrote: > FWIW, I spent significantly less that 10 years writing the following: > > action > > average hcp(north) <= 11, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) >=12, > average hcp(north) <= 11 and hcp(east) <= 11 and hcp(south) <=3 > > Upon running this through Dealer I received the following output > > .6517 > .3767 > .2049 > .0048 > > I recommend that you recheck you're calculations / rethink your > methods because > > > I calculate that on 39.46% of all deals, first hand has 11 points > or less > > is obviously wrong. What I find amazing is the assumption that players won't open the bidding with fewer than 12 points. Do they not pre-empt in Belgium? Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110506/7522bdc9/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri May 6 13:48:09 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 07:48:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] H1H - the frequency In-Reply-To: <4DC3AC84.6060807@skynet.be> References: <4DC28825.7050908@skynet.be> <4DC3AC84.6060807@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > 2. You (apparently) never learned to use any of a variety of good deal > generators to run a Monte Carlo simulation I have calculated real probabilities, not simulated ones. You calculated something. However, I'd be very hesitant to start throwing words like "real" around... As a practical example, the following page on wikipedia lists the probability that someone is dealt 11 or fewer HCP as .6518 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_probabilities Remarkably close to the output from my silly little Monte Carlo simulation and very far removed from your own estimate of 39.46% > 3. You never considered solving this problem analytically > > > > The frequency distribution of the Goren count of one hand? I presume > that could be done. But of two hands? Three? Believe it or not, it can be done... Its not simple, but given that you were working with time scales measured in decades, I suspect that it would have proven faster. And who knows, maybe you would have even gotten the right answer... -- 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/20110506/00033008/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Sat May 7 16:50:52 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 10:50:52 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <4DC24F9F.4090901@skynet.be> References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> <4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> <4DC24F9F.4090901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4DC55C4C.8030205@nhcc.net> On 5/5/2011 3:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I'd rather treat the "cheat" as an honest player, even a very clever one. ... > Better is it to simply allow to all what an inattentive player might do > inadvertently. Makes sense to me. On 5/5/2011 8:08 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: > Abolishing L62A means we tell the (honest) players is it OK to hide a > revoke even when discovered before the revoke is established. Yes. A player who notices he has revoked gets to decide whether the revoke penalty or the penalty card is less damaging to his side. If you want to add incentive to correct the revoke, go back to the two- trick rectification. > I don't > think that would be good for the game as it would mean artificial > scores ??? I don't see that one ever gets an artificial score in a revoke case. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 7 21:27:50 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 15:27:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <4DC55C4C.8030205@nhcc.net> References: <898A133D2FCC49618DA65FB9AB2BB702@sfora4869e47f1> <4DC160D4.1070007@nhcc.net> <4DC24F9F.4090901@skynet.be> <4DC55C4C.8030205@nhcc.net> Message-ID: What is the logic behind requiring players to report their unestablished revokes and allowing them to hide their established revokes? > On 5/5/2011 3:19 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: >> I'd rather treat the "cheat" as an honest player, even a very clever >> one. > ... >> Better is it to simply allow to all what an inattentive player might do >> inadvertently. > > Makes sense to me. > > On 5/5/2011 8:08 AM, Peter Smulders wrote: > > Abolishing L62A means we tell the (honest) players is it OK to hide a > > revoke even when discovered before the revoke is established. > > Yes. A player who notices he has revoked gets to decide whether the > revoke penalty or the penalty card is less damaging to his side. If you > want to add incentive to correct the revoke, go back to the two- trick > rectification. > > > I don't > > think that would be good for the game as it would mean artificial > > scores > > ??? > > I don't see that one ever gets an artificial score in a revoke case. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 7 22:21:41 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 16:21:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L41D, dummy spreads hands [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 04 May 2011 21:02:04 -0400, wrote: > > Law 41D - Dummy's Hand: > > "After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him > on > the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with > the > lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise > towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy's right. Declarer plays both > his hand and that of dummy." > > Sven Pran: > > Can dummy's cards be considered "spread in front of him on the table, > face > up, sorted into suits" if any of his 13 cards are not visible? > > Robert Frcik: > > I think there is nothing wrong with how I began this posting: "Today > dummy > spread his hand face up with one card hidden behind another." Was that > jarring to anyone? So I think the answer is yes, cards can be spread out > even if one is hidden. "Spread out" seems to contrast to "being in a > pile" > or "all together". So I have no trouble saying that people are spread out > all over the world even if some are on top of each other. > > Put another way, if the law said "completely spread out" I wouldn't have > taken that as redundant. > > Of course, if you know how you want to read the law, you can interpret > "spread out" as meaning what you want it to mean. > ..... > > Richard Hills: > > In the nineteenth century a new technique of rigour was applied to > mathematical logic. For example, a logical entity designated "Robert > Frcik" was deemed to be completely different from a logical entity > designated "Robert Frick", with the common-sense assumption that "Frcik" > was a typo for "Frick" no longer being permitted by the rules of rigour. > > So while I support obvious ambiguities being removed from the Lawbook, I > do > not support ridiculous rigour apparently advocated by Robert Frcik. I asked the person who had a card hidden in dummy (and got rectified for it) if his dummy was spread in front of him face up. He said yes. So this isn't a trivial error in the laws. It is really nice when trying to justify a ruling if the laws clearly support the ruling. I should never feel like I don't want a player reading the lawbook after I have ruled; as noted, I was happy this player could not read it on the day I ruled. And Eric was sympathetic to the idea that perhaps the laws were written with the part about "all cards showing" not present so that that would not necessarily be an infraction. How do we know when to ignore errors and when the supposed-error was intentional? "Spread" refers moreso to space, not if cards are covered. When we spread butter, we know there are too many molecules for all of them to be showing. So it just isn't a good choice for saying that all of dummy's cards should be showing. (Longer argument available upon request.) The point is, if the laws were open to public scrutiny before they were passed, a lot of these errors would be caught. So putting up with these errors is exactly the wrong strategy for getting better laws. Bob From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun May 8 16:56:08 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 16:56:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please Message-ID: <4DC6AF08.8030308@aol.com> Pairs, strong players. (But strong players are often not well informed on the laws, as will become apparent.) North dealer, NS vulnerable. Here are the hands: KJ2 The bidding: N E S W AK8 1SA 2di* 2he Ps Q52 Ps 2sp dbl? Ps Q1064 3he all pass 4 A109875 J95 63 * = one suiter, in major suit KJ63 1097 ? = No agreement but North said he suspects 5-4-3-1 with short spades. Not corrected by South after the AJ982 K7 auction ended 1st trick: sp.4 sp.J sp.A sp. 3 Q63 Q10742 leads: 3rd and 5th highest A84 53 Following comments, questions: The TD told North that when there is no agreement, he should simply say so and not say what he suspects, even if he means this well, as a friendly gesture. No need (I assume) to comment on this. Should South correct the info of North before the opening lead? if so, with what sort of formulation so as not to inform the opponents of his actual distribution? Should he do this even though his partner said he suspected that this was the distribution, not that this was the agreement? After E wins the first trick with the ace he (a good player) should probably see that the info was false. If South had a single spade, his partner would have 3 spades and surely have bid 3 spades. Do not bother about warning or possible penalty for the false info from NS and possibly the failure to correct it. Do you award EW a score adjustment? East returned the club king and now 3 hearts was won. Thanks, JE From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Sun May 8 19:41:41 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 19:41:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4DC6AF08.8030308@aol.com> References: <4DC6AF08.8030308@aol.com> Message-ID: <4DC6D5D5.9010800@gmail.com> W dniu 2011-05-08 16:56, Jeff Easterson pisze: > Here are the hands: Could you reformat? ?K From swillner at nhcc.net Sun May 8 19:57:39 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 13:57:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4DC6D5D5.9010800@gmail.com> References: <4DC6AF08.8030308@aol.com> <4DC6D5D5.9010800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4DC6D993.8060408@nhcc.net> > Could you reformat? Yes, please. Don't use tabs, and limit lines that show hands to no more than 72 characters. Use a fixed-width font. As a general comment, the declaring side should correct MI before the opening lead but should use language that makes it clear they are describing the agreement, not the actual cards held. There's a famous US appeals case that illustrates the point. I think Garozzo might have been involved. Anyway, defenders were initially and incorrectly told declarer's bidding had promised five cards in a certain suit. He actually had five cards, but the agreement was that he had promised only four. The explanation was corrected before the opening lead. The AC ruled (correctly, in my view), that the defenders had correct information at the time of the lead, and that no adjusted score was needed. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun May 8 20:23:13 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 20:23:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4DC6D5D5.9010800@gmail.com> References: <4DC6AF08.8030308@aol.com> <4DC6D5D5.9010800@gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 08.05.2011, 19:41 Uhr, schrieb ?ukasz Kalbarczyk : > W dniu 2011-05-08 16:56, Jeff Easterson pisze: >> Here are the hands: > > Could you reformat? > Here are the hands: KJ2 AK8 Q52 Q1064 4 A109875 J95 63 KJ63 1097 AJ982 K7 Q63 Q10742 A84 53 The bidding: N E S W 1SA 2di* 2he Ps Ps 2sp dbl? Ps 3he all pass * = one suiter, in major suit ? = No agreement but North said he suspects 5-4-3-1 with short spades. Not corrected by South after the auction ended 1st trick: sp.4 sp.J sp.A sp. 3 leads: 3rd and 5th highest I hope I've got it right. To me, it seems crucial whether N actually said "no agreement, but ..." or only told opponents what he thought it meant. In the first case, there is no MI - score stands. Otherwise, adjusted to 3H-2 (possibly a weighted score as it seems to have taken place in Germany). Regards, Petrus From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Sun May 8 20:37:02 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 20:37:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: References: <4DC6AF08.8030308@aol.com> <4DC6D5D5.9010800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4DC6E2CE.4040200@gmail.com> W dniu 2011-05-08 20:23, Petrus Schuster OSB pisze: > I hope I've got it right. > To me, it seems crucial whether N actually said "no agreement, but ..." or > only told opponents what he thought it meant. > In the first case, there is no MI - score stands. > Otherwise, adjusted to 3H-2 (possibly a weighted score as it seems to have > taken place in Germany). We had similar case to this one. "No agreement, but..." was the wrong explanation. Formally it should be corrected on "No agreement", without "but". This is difficult and very formal, but... N told too much... 3H-2 for me, but I could understand the other ruling. ?K From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 9 01:04:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:04:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DC55C4C.8030205@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner, non-ironical: Yes [Law 62A should be abolished]. A player who notices he has revoked gets to decide whether the revoke penalty or the penalty card is less damaging to his side. If you want to add incentive to correct the revoke, go back to the two-trick rectification. Richard Hills, ironical: Yes Law 73C should be abolished. A player who gets unauthorised information from partner unnoticed by the opponents gets to decide whether using or ignoring pard's UI is less damaging to her side. If you want to add zero incentive to ignore pard's UI unnoticed by the opponents, fail to reinstate Law 73C and delete the first phrase of the Introduction: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure ... " Richard Hills, non-ironical: It seems to me that Steve Willner believes only in the existence of tangible incentives. A sociological experiment conducted at an Israeli child-care centre proved that non-tangible incentives can be more powerful. Some parents had a habit of being late in collecting their children, inconveniencing the centre's staff. So the sociologists suggested the negative incentive of a late fee. Then the number of late collections of children ... ... increased! The moral disincentive of guilt at being late had been replaced by a financial disincentive of a late fee, and the late fee had been set too low. Eric Landau and myself not only place the moral incentive of obeying the Laws higher than the score incentive of winning a session, but also we know that the vast majority of bridge players believe that it is pointless to win contrary to the rules. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110508/0cd7f6d0/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 9 04:09:18 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 22:09:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 08 May 2011 19:04:28 -0400, wrote: > > Steve Willner, non-ironical: > > Yes [Law 62A should be abolished]. A player who notices he has revoked > gets > to decide whether the revoke penalty or the penalty card is less damaging > to his side. If you want to add incentive to correct the revoke, go back > to > the two-trick rectification. > > Richard Hills, ironical: > > Yes Law 73C should be abolished. A player who gets unauthorised > information > from partner unnoticed by the opponents gets to decide whether using or > ignoring pard's UI is less damaging to her side. If you want to add zero > incentive to ignore pard's UI unnoticed by the opponents, fail to > reinstate > Law 73C and delete the first phrase of the Introduction: > > "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure ... " > > Richard Hills, non-ironical: > > It seems to me that Steve Willner believes only in the existence of > tangible incentives. A sociological experiment conducted at an Israeli > child-care centre proved that non-tangible incentives can be more > powerful. > Some parents had a habit of being late in collecting their children, > inconveniencing the centre's staff. So the sociologists suggested the > negative incentive of a late fee. Then the number of late collections of > children ... > > ... increased! The moral disincentive of guilt at being late had been > replaced by a financial disincentive of a late fee, and the late fee had > been set too low. > > Eric Landau and myself not only place the moral incentive of obeying the > Laws higher than the score incentive of winning a session, but also we > know > that the vast majority of bridge players believe that it is pointless to > win contrary to the rules. It not easy to find laws in games that trigger on a player's awareness. For example, it is against the laws of American football to make a tackle after the whistle has blown to end the play. Awareness of the whistle is irrelevant. (That excuse also did not work the last time the police stopped me for running a stop sign.) There is increases penalties if the player makes an infraction on purpose, but the referee *never* asks the player anything. So it is unusual that I would have to ask a player if he was aware of his unestablished revoke and penalize him if he answers yes. It is a little odd that you are supporting this position. Don't the bridge laws try to avoid this as much as possible? To use your own example, the rectification procedure for using information from partner pretty much avoids me having to ask the player anything. Also, I don't think anyone has yet come up with a reason why the unestablished revoke needs to be confessed. Your child-care story is interesting. However, there were intangible punishments for being late -- you perhaps earned the ire of the people who were going to be taking care of your precious children all day. I suspec that for laws that can be freely broken, some people will break them. If others see them being broken, some others will "defect" from the moral high ground and break the laws. When most people are breaking the law, it becomes silly to follow it. Which is why the law tries to avoid this situation as much as possible. And yes, I pretty much have to rely on self-report when a player claims that a bid was inadvertent. And yes, players lie about that and there is nothing I can do. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon May 9 07:38:34 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 07:38:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please In-Reply-To: <4DC6E2CE.4040200@gmail.com> References: <4DC6AF08.8030308@aol.com> <4DC6D5D5.9010800@gmail.com> <4DC6E2CE.4040200@gmail.com> Message-ID: Am 08.05.2011, 20:37 Uhr, schrieb ?ukasz Kalbarczyk : > W dniu 2011-05-08 20:23, Petrus Schuster OSB pisze: >> I hope I've got it right. >> To me, it seems crucial whether N actually said "no agreement, but ..." >> or >> only told opponents what he thought it meant. >> In the first case, there is no MI - score stands. >> Otherwise, adjusted to 3H-2 (possibly a weighted score as it seems to >> have >> taken place in Germany). > > We had similar case to this one. > "No agreement, but..." was the wrong explanation. > Formally it should be corrected on "No agreement", without "but". > This is difficult and very formal, but... N told too much... > OTOH, the "but"-part usually comes from partnership experience in similar situation, which would be disclosable. As explanations at the table are not legal documents, I would hesitate to put too fine an interpretation on the actual words. Regards, Petrus > 3H-2 for me, but I could understand the other ruling. > > ?K > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 9 09:22:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 17:22:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] your opinions please [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: President Bill Clinton (1993-2001): "I did not have sexual relations with that women, Miss Lewinsky." =+= OTOH, the "but"-part usually comes from partnership experience in similar situation, which would be disclosable. As explanations at the table are not legal documents, I would hesitate to put too fine an interpretation on the actual words. Regards, Petrus =+= But it is the actual words which give AI or MI to the opponents. Half truths can mislead (see above, where in Slick Willie's mind he was merely denying reproductive bonking). There are two, Lawfully distinct, "but ... " explanations. (1) "but I am taking it as ... ", where Little Old Ladies in a new partnership do not have a prior understanding, but now create a new understanding during the auction. (2) "but we have a cogent and relevant meta-rule of ... ", where semi-experts in an old partnership do not have a prior explicit understanding, but do have a prior implicit understanding. Best wishes Richard Hills ABF Alert Regulation 2008 9. Explanations 9.1 If an enquiry is made, a full explanation of the call must be given. This includes any conventional or partnership agreement, whether the agreement is explicit or based on partnership experience. Explanations may well include distributions and point ranges specifically excluded by a call, as well as those shown directly. When giving explanations, it is not necessary to repeat information given earlier in the hand, unless such information is requested. When explaining an alerted or self-alerting call, you should indicate if this same call may have a slightly different meaning (e.g. different point range) due to a variation of vulnerabilities and/or position around the table. 9.2 If there is no partnership agreement as to the meaning of a call, you must say so (by saying, "Undiscussed", for example), and not attempt to offer a possible explanation. When, however, as a result of partnership experience and style, you are able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning of an undiscussed call, that information shall be given to the opponents. Where a call is undiscussed, you should not offer statements such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating it as...". Such a response is improper as it gives unauthorised information to partner. 9.3 Merely to name a convention (e.g. Michaels, Lebensohl, etc.) is not an acceptable explanation. There are many variations of most conventions, and a more specific explanation is normally required. Similarly, the use of "Standard" or "Natural" to describe calls, signals or leads is rarely sufficient - nor are the terms "Weak", "Strong" or "Intermediate" - without appropriate qualification. 9.4 An explanation given in response to an enquiry about the meaning of any call should avoid reference to the meaning of any response yet to be made to that call (unless requested by an opponent). 9.5 You need not divulge knowledge or conclusions you have reached based on your own card holdings, or as a consequence of your general bridge knowledge. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110509/44a9bf40/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 9 16:43:27 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:43:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI ? Message-ID: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, Here is a problem that I encountered when playing in the playdowns last week. RHO opens 2H. Perhaps because of the alert, and perhaps because the opponents in the 1st halftime played it, I think it is "weak Flannery" and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the2H bid, is told it is weak and rather undisciplined (perhaps a good reason for alerting), and now : 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my strong 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions (or, as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play Is such information which results from partner's question, but which was available by other means, UI or AI ? Would the answer be different if you judged that 2H shouldn't have been alerted ? Thank you for your advice. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon May 9 17:26:50 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 17:26:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DC807BA.9090304@skynet.be> Hello Alain, You must consider that your knowledge of your own system is AI to you, and so is the knowledge you eventually gain about theirs. The only thing is the manner by which you received the AI, which may be called Unauthorized. I am usually very lenient on receiving knowledge from a question by partner, provided you have a reason yourself for asking. In this case, since you believed you knew the answer already, there is no reason for your asking, and so receiving the answer because of partner's question must be called UI. However, there may well be a later reason why you would need to ask. If you believe their system to be Flannery, and they now bid 3C and pass it - meaning it would be Muiderberg, I allow you to "ask now" and form there one, the answer is AI again. The answer would be different if the call had not been alerted, since, in Belgium, there are two non-alertable meanings for 2H (weak or strong). Most people play 2H as hearts and a minor, so the alert would mean you have a good reason to expect this (why you would expect Flannery is another thing). Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is a problem that I encountered when playing in the playdowns last > week. > > RHO opens 2H. Perhaps because of the alert, and perhaps because the > opponents in the 1st halftime played it, I think it is "weak Flannery" > and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the2H bid, is > told it is weak and rather undisciplined (perhaps a good reason for > alerting), and now : > > 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my strong > 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) > 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions (or, > as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play > > Is such information which results from partner's question, but which was > available by other means, UI or AI ? > Would the answer be different if you judged that 2H shouldn't have been > alerted ? > > Thank you for your advice. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3625 - Release Date: 05/08/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 9 17:42:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 11:42:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 May 2011 10:43:27 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is a problem that I encountered when playing in the playdowns last > week. > > RHO opens 2H. Perhaps because of the alert, and perhaps because the > opponents in the 1st halftime played it, I think it is "weak Flannery" > and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the2H bid, is > told it is weak and rather undisciplined (perhaps a good reason for > alerting), and now : > > 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my strong > 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) > 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions (or, > as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play > > Is such information which results from partner's question, but which was > available by other means, UI or AI ? > Would the answer be different if you judged that 2H shouldn't have been > alerted ? I think that information you get from answers to partner's questions has to be AI. (The other option would be major chaos.) > > Thank you for your advice. > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From adam at tameware.com Mon May 9 17:46:09 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:46:09 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Orlando NABC+ Case 9: responsive double In-Reply-To: <3F851A1F726E4AF5935D41FDA7687DC7@erdos> References: <3F851A1F726E4AF5935D41FDA7687DC7@erdos> Message-ID: I'm confident that EW do not play Rosenkranz doubles. They're my teammates in the trials starting tomorrow, so I'll have a chance to find out. I'll also ask Kit why he doubled rather than raising. My guess is that he thought he was too strong for a single raise and didn't want to suggest four trump with a cue-bid. On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:45 PM, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > S W N E > P P 1H 1S > 2H X P 2N > P P X XX > P 3S X AP > > The write-up describes West's double as "responsive", but the doubler's > hand was > QT9 JT83 AK7 T73. The usual agreement about responsive doubles after a > major-suit overcall is that they show both minors; this hand looks like a > normal > Rozenkranz double to me. Is "responsive" an error in the write-up, is it > misinformation or misbid, or is this how they play responsive doubles (in > which > case I would expect at least an alert)? > > It does appear that East took the double as responsive, as he bid 2NT > (asking > partner to pick a minor) with 5=0=4=4, rather than 2S on his minimum > overcall. > If West intended the double as Rozenkranz, then he had MI; 2NT after a > Rozenkranz double should be a game try, which West might accept. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110509/ef71ef6c/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon May 9 19:45:05 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 19:45:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000c01cc0e70$d5695d80$803c1880$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Mon, 09 May 2011 10:43:27 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is a problem that I encountered when playing in the playdowns > last > > week. > > > > RHO opens 2H. Perhaps because of the alert, and perhaps because the > > opponents in the 1st halftime played it, I think it is "weak > Flannery" > > and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the2H bid, > is > > told it is weak and rather undisciplined (perhaps a good reason for > > alerting), and now : > > > > 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my > strong > > 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) > > 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions > (or, > > as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play > > > > Is such information which results from partner's question, but which > was > > available by other means, UI or AI ? > > Would the answer be different if you judged that 2H shouldn't have > been > > alerted ? > > I think that information you get from answers to partner's questions > has to be AI. (The other option would be major chaos.) There can be no question that the information you received from your partner's question is UI to you. However, I agree with Herman that when you eventually would have a reason to ask (for instance because of a surprising development in the auction) the information you received from your partner's question is AI to you to the extent that you would receive the same information from your own (delayed) question. Sven From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue May 10 01:00:45 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 18:00:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: <000c01cc0e70$d5695d80$803c1880$@no> References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cc0e70$d5695d80$803c1880$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote > > > There can be no question that the information you received from your > partner's question is UI to you. > > Really? You are South. West alerts. North asks, "please explain." You are telling us that West's explanation is UI to me, merely because North said "please explain?" Would you agree that you were perhaps slightly imprecise, and that actually, the answer is AI, but North's question is UI? Sven, would you be willing to accept this refinement of what you said? But also, if North was silent instead of asking "please explain," then that is UI too. Am I right so far? It seems to me if North generally* asks when he does not know, whether it affects his choice or not, the fact that North asked a question provides no information, and therefore, no UI. Sven, can you agree with that too? *Why "generally"? Many possibilities, such as the director has ordered a quick completion to the round, or you have a vague feeling of being behind, or perhaps you judge the director unwilling to provide you protection for the UI you are about to give to the opponents. I think these are the three reasons I sometimes do not ask when I do not know. But with these exceptions, I ask even when it could not possibly affect my action, because I don't want to provide UI to my partner. Also, I like to maintain a mental picture of the opponents' hands. I realize that in England and probably elsewhere, I should have a good hand before asking what the opponents' alerts mean. I should broadcast to both partner and opponents that I have a hand that is considering action when I ask a question, and I should broadcast to both partner and opponents that I do not have such a hand when don't ask the question. What a crazy rule! The ACBL's way is so much better! It seems obvious to me that if you do what you always do and ask "Please explain," then you are providing no information to partner, and therefore there is no UI. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110509/daf15761/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 10 01:25:00 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:25:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert, "The Pirates of Penzance": I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's; I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox, I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus, In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous; I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies, I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes! Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore, And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore. Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform, And tell you every detail of Caractacus's uniform: In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, I am the very model of a modern Major-General. Robert Frick: I think that information you get from answers to partner's questions has to be AI. (The other option would be major chaos.) Richard Hills: In general Law 75A prescribes what Robert Frick incorrectly defines as the very model of a modern Major-Chaos. In particular Alain's case is a rather unusual example of Law 75A. Alain's misbid was not the typical one of him forgetting his own methods, but rather Alain irrationally assuming that the opposing Alert of 2H must mean that 2H had a particular meaning. Sven Pran: There can be no question that the information Alain received from Alain's partner's question is UI to Alain. However, I agree with Herman that when Alain eventually would have a reason to ask (for instance because of a surprising development in the auction) the information Alain received from Alain's partner's question is AI to Alain to the extent that you would receive the same information from Alain's own (delayed) question. Richard Hills: Yes and No. I disagree with Sven and Herman to some extent. If the surprising development in the auction is consistent with Alain's initial idea, then Alain is still constrained by UI. Let us examine the Law 75A indicative example. NORTH.................SOUTH 1NT(1)................2D(2) 2NT(3) (1) 16-18 (2) intended as a natural signoff (3) 2D explained as Forcing Stayman Law 75A, final sentence: "For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." Richard Hills: 2NT would have been a "surprising development in the auction" to South, but NOT an "_impossible_ development in the auction", hence South's "responsibility is to act", just as Alain had a "responsibility to act" in many possible developments of the auction and play at Alain's table. (Whether or not Alain did commit a Law 75A infraction cannot be determined until further details of the board are provided.) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110509/da0db262/attachment-0001.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue May 10 02:02:09 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 20:02:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Orlando NABC+ Case 9: responsive double In-Reply-To: References: <3F851A1F726E4AF5935D41FDA7687DC7@erdos> Message-ID: <8918BA3BF702412688F964A33BAB562E@erdos> It's certainly reasonable to play responsive doubles followed by a raise as showing a different type of raise; the question is then whether such doubles are alertable (that is, whether the opponents were misinformed that West could have an ordinary single raise for this sequence, as opposed to a scramble, and that may have led North to double). Given West's 3=4=3=3 with a heart stopper, he would pass a natural 2NT on this auction, so there is no UI issue. If this is a relevant issue, it could have been raised by the committee (even if North didn't raise it); misinformation is based on an understanding of the whole auction, not just one bid. ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Wildavsky To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Orlando NABC+ Case 9: responsive double I'm confident that EW do not play Rosenkranz doubles. They're my teammates in the trials starting tomorrow, so I'll have a chance to find out. I'll also ask Kit why he doubled rather than raising. My guess is that he thought he was too strong for a single raise and didn't want to suggest four trump with a cue-bid. On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:45 PM, David Grabiner wrote: S W N E P P 1H 1S 2H X P 2N P P X XX P 3S X AP The write-up describes West's double as "responsive", but the doubler's hand was QT9 JT83 AK7 T73. The usual agreement about responsive doubles after a major-suit overcall is that they show both minors; this hand looks like a normal Rozenkranz double to me. Is "responsive" an error in the write-up, is it misinformation or misbid, or is this how they play responsive doubles (in which case I would expect at least an alert)? It does appear that East took the double as responsive, as he bid 2NT (asking partner to pick a minor) with 5=0=4=4, rather than 2S on his minimum overcall. If West intended the double as Rozenkranz, then he had MI; 2NT after a Rozenkranz double should be a game try, which West might accept. _______________________________________________ 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/20110510/219d6fd9/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 10 03:27:36 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:27:36 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: Really? You are South. West alerts. North asks, "please explain." You are telling us that West's explanation is UI to me, merely because North said "please explain?" But also, if North was silent instead of asking "please explain," then that is UI too. Am I right so far? Law 73B1: " ... questions asked or not asked of the opponents ... " Jerry Fusselman: Would you agree that you were perhaps slightly imprecise, and that actually, the answer is AI, but North's question is UI? Sven, would you be willing to accept this refinement of what you said? Richard Hills: In my opinion, because partner's question is UI, the question's answer which partner elicited is also UI. Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." Richard Hills: In a Law 20G1 infraction, the benefit is not in partner hearing the question, but rather in partner hearing the answer. Jerry Fusselman: It seems to me if North generally* asks when he does not know, whether it affects his choice or not, the fact that North asked a question provides no information, and therefore, no UI. Sven, can you agree with that too? *Why "generally"? Many possibilities, such as the director has ordered a quick completion to the round, or you have a vague feeling of being behind, or perhaps you judge the director unwilling to provide you protection for the UI you are about to give to the opponents. I think these are the three reasons I sometimes do not ask when I do not know. But with these exceptions, I ask even when it could not possibly affect my action, because I don't want to provide UI to my partner. Also, I like to maintain a mental picture of the opponents' hands. Richard Hills: I disagree that the "always ask about Alerts" strategy precludes creation of UI, simply because "always ask" advocates do not always ask (as Jerry honestly admits). Jerry Fusselman: I realize that in England and probably elsewhere, I should have a good hand before asking what the opponents' alerts mean. I should broadcast to both partner and opponents that I have a hand that is considering action when I ask a question, and I should broadcast to both partner and opponents that I do not have such a hand when don't ask the question. What a crazy rule! The ACBL's way is so much better! It seems obvious to me that if you do what you always do and ask "Please explain," then you are providing no information to partner, and therefore there is no UI. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003, item 1: The Chairman raised the question of the practice of the English Bridge Union in discouraging questions by players when the answer to the question would not affect their immediate action on the hand. He felt that this is contrary to the laws. The Secretary provided copies of the regulation in question -- this does not prohibit a question but reminds players of the risk of passing unauthorised information to partner and urges that questions be left until the player needs to know that answer and, wherever possible, until after the opening lead has been selected (or the questioner is about to select an opening lead). It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be asked. Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked every time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information. It was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information. The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2) that he had a "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking the question. The Chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F2 should only be used in extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know what is happening at the table is a good enough "bridge reason". Mr Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinion, it was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced of the Chairman's argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the occasion for applying 73F2 is a matter for the Director and the Appeals Committee to judge. Mr Wignall spoke of the possibility of asking questions randomly whether interested or not. He felt there needed to be some scope for asking questions even when not interested in the reply. Mr Schoder referred to the possibility of replacing alerts with announcements. There was no final resolution of the differences of opinion and no agreed interpretation of the Law. It was acknowledged that it is a matter that the laws drafting subcommittee will have to consider and its proposals for the future should be presented clearly in its drafts. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110510/53d48cec/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 10 04:00:24 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 22:00:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 09 May 2011 21:27:36 -0400, wrote: > > Jerry Fusselman: > > Would you agree that you were perhaps slightly imprecise, and that > actually, the answer is AI, but North's question is UI? Sven, would you > be > willing to accept this refinement of what you said? > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, because partner's question is UI, the question's answer > which partner elicited is also UI. I like it! You are saying that, according to the laws, the opponents' explanations of their bids are UI to me if my partner asks the question. Other good arguments are snipped. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 10 06:23:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:23:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." =+= What is the logic behind requiring players to report their unestablished revokes and allowing them to hide their established revokes? =+= This is two questions compressed into one. Also, in my opinion, "revoke" is two infractions compressed into one. In my opinion an "established revoke" is distinct from an "unestablished revoke" and indeed the two different infractions require two different rectifications. If one adopts this worldview, then the Law 62A requirement to draw attention to one's just-discovered unestablished revoke = a Law 62A requirement to avoid committing an intentional new infraction of an established revoke = a special case of the Law 72B1 requirement to avoid an intentional infraction. As for the second question, to reveal one's unintentional established revokes against one's own interests is (for me personally) a matter of when, not whether. Law 72B2 uses the curious phrase "no obligation to", which thereby legalises masochism. I am a partial masochist, so I choose to reveal my unintentional established revokes "after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal". I therefore avoid an arbitrary Law 64A mechanical rectification, but I still volunteer for a Law 64C equity rectification. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110510/ff07e6e6/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Tue May 10 07:26:13 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 22:26:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Orlando2010.html > > If you want to discuss a particular case please post a new message > with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > one. > > I'll post my draft comments later this week. > > I don't know when the Non-NABC+ cases will be posted. > The cases can be found in a single PDF here: http://www.bridgeindia.com/NABC/NABC_FALL_2010_ORLANDO/NABC_FALL_2010_oRLANDO.html The typesetting is different too. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110510/af5f3f85/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Tue May 10 07:28:13 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 22:28:13 -0700 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Orlando2010.html >> >> If you want to discuss a particular case please post a new message >> with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this >> one. >> >> I'll post my draft comments later this week. >> >> I don't know when the Non-NABC+ cases will be posted. >> > > The cases can be found in a single PDF here: > > > http://www.bridgeindia.com/NABC/NABC_FALL_2010_ORLANDO/NABC_FALL_2010_oRLANDO.html > > The typesetting is different too. > Here are my draft comments: 1. Having an agreement that partner cannot hold a five card major is one piece of data indicating that he does not hold five hearts. Hearing him bid 2H is an indication that he does. North cannot use unauthorized information to help him resolve the contradiction. As for the likely result in 2H, the committee did well to consider the implications of E/W's agreements. What I think they missed was that under current ACBL interpretations of the law NS are entitled to know both the actual NS agreement (here that there was none) and that South believed there was an agreement. Under those circumstances it seems to me at least at all probable that East would have chosen to violate his system and pass out 2H, or that EW would have worked out that using penalty doubles is a good idea when the opponents don't know their methods. 2. I agree with the dissent. This appeal had no merit. 3. I prefer the AC's ruling to the TD's. Since the case was close I'm surprised the TD did not rule in favor of the non-offenders. 4. N/S's testimony makes it clear that they were on shaky ground. Further, it does follow from the fact that 3S is forcing that a pass of 5H is forcing. There is no reason to believe that EW think they are saving, and many pairs follow the principle that a pass is seldom forcing on a preemptor. I much prefer the TD's ruling. Thanks to Jeff Goldsmith for setting me straight on this one! 5. Yes, East took a risk when bidding 3d, but that risk was surely lessened by the unauthorized information he received from his partner. I have no quarrel with the TD and AC rulings, but this case easily could have gone the other way. 6. The AC ruling looks strange, but their reasoning is sound as far as it goes. Aside from skip-bid rules the ACBL has no preset standards for normal tempo on any auction. If South's tempo was appropriate for what is surely an unusual situation then North had no UI and may bid as he pleases. That said, the TD found that there was a break in tempo and he was aware that the auction was an unusual one. If I were in doubt South's hand would convince me that she had a problem. North's call seems unusual as well. If 6c were cold it seems likely that South would have bid it, either to make or as a save. It seems simplistic, but usually when a pair reports a break in tempo to the TD there was in fact a break in tempo. The exact amount of time taken is less important than whether the other players at the table knew that this player had a problem. A player who made a habit of falsely claiming that his opponents had hesitated would soon develop a reputation. The case may be close, but I prefer the TD's ruling. Again, thanks to Jeff Goldsmith for helping me reason along the right lines. 7. Looks right to me. 8. I would have ruled for the declaring side here. E/W cannot be allowed any possible benefit from a defensive claim when partner's play matters. If East might have played low when the DJ is played quickly then some part of the time he will do the same when the DJ is played slowly. This would be a careless and inferior play, but Law 69 explicitly caters to that. The committee incorrectly cited the 1998 claim law, which is no longer in force. The 2008 version of Law 69 makes no mention of plays that would be "irrational", I think precisely to help keep TDs and ACs from going wrong is cases like this one. 9. North's argument makes no sense to me. He knew that 2N was not natural and doubled 3S anyway. I see no merit to this appeal. 10. "The East-West team captain said that their policy is not to call the Director for infractions and to generally approach the game in a friendly fashion." I strongly object to the implication that a TD call need be anything but friendly, and to the implicit characterization of NS as unfriendly. The laws require players to summon the TD to deal with irregularities. Further, I do not understand why, this being the team's policy, they would then file an appeal. Such an action imposes substantially more of a burden on their opponents, the tournament staff, and the volunteer committee members than a TD call would. I see no merit to this appeal. Had I any doubt the captain's stament would certainly convince me to issue one. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110510/28bc516e/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue May 10 08:02:00 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 02:02:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DC8D4D8.7040703@gmail.com> On 05/09/2011 09:27 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Jerry Fusselman: > > Really? You are South. West alerts. North asks, "please explain." You > are telling us that West's explanation is UI to me, merely because > North said "please explain?" > > But also, if North was silent instead of asking "please explain," then > that is UI too. Am I right so far? > > Law 73B1: > > " ... questions asked or not asked of the opponents ... " > > Jerry Fusselman: > > Would you agree that you were perhaps slightly imprecise, and that > actually, the answer is AI, but North's question is UI? Sven, would > you be willing to accept this refinement of what you said? > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, because partner's question is UI, the question's answer > which partner elicited is also UI. > So if both players in a partnership want to know about the meaning of a bid, in order for them not to be using UI, you are saying that the exact same explanation must be given twice, once to each player? Assuming you are correct, then I think this is a case where the Laws have a severe disconnect with the grass roots player. If I were playing with my regular partner, opponents would know before starting play that we played a heavily-tweaked version of Precision. Fine, so the 1C opener and 1D response are not likely to be a problem. When the 1C opener rebids 1H, alerted, and next hand asks, and we explain the Cambridge 1H Complex, not one player in 1000, having heard us explain it to their partner, is going to ask for the explanation again at their turn to call in order to avoid using UI. I can see the question creating UI, of course, that obviously has to be likely, absent a rigorously-followed "*always* ask" policy - but details of an opponent's system ought always to be AI, otherwise the game is going to become farcical - especially if the microscopically small percentage of club players who understand the situation should call the TD because 4th hand didn't ask the same question again and is thought to have used UI. That way lies madness, IMHO. Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 10 09:08:26 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:08:26 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DC8D4D8.7040703@gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: In my opinion, because partner's question is UI, the question's answer which partner elicited is also UI. Brian Meadows: So if both players in a partnership want to know about the meaning of a bid, in order for them not to be using UI, you are saying that the exact same explanation must be given twice, once to each player? Assuming you are correct, then I think this is a case where the Laws have a severe disconnect with the grass roots player. If I were playing with my regular partner, opponents would know before starting play that we played a heavily-tweaked version of Precision. Fine, so the 1C opener and 1D response are not likely to be a problem. When the 1C opener rebids 1H, alerted, and next hand asks, and we explain the Cambridge 1H Complex, not one player in 1000, having heard us explain it to their partner, is going to ask for the explanation again at their turn to call in order to avoid using UI. I can see the question creating UI, of course, that obviously has to be likely, absent a rigorously-followed "*always* ask" policy - but details of an opponent's system ought always to be AI, otherwise the game is going to become farcical - especially if the microscopically small percentage of club players who understand the situation should call the TD because 4th hand didn't ask the same question again and is thought to have used UI. That way lies madness, IMHO. Richard Hills: I agree with Brian and I disagree with myself. To be precise, I disagree with my over-succinct and hence ambiguous posting above. In almost all circumstances an opponent's answer is AI. The obvious time an answer is UI is when pard has asked an illegal "Kaplan question", prohibited by Law 20G1. I agree with Brian that an opponent's answer to pard's question about RHO's 1H rebid is AI when both partners have a false idea about RHO's 1H rebid but neither partner has yet acted on that false idea. But once you have misbid due to a misapprehension about the opponent's system, clarification of that misapprehension by partner (in my opinion) is equally UI whether partner announces, "I see by your system card that the alerted 1H rebid is not somewhat natural, but rather is the Cambridge 1H Complex," or whether partner asks, "Is 1H the Cambridge 1H Complex?" or whether partner asks, "Why the alert of 1H?" In my opinion, the key issue is customised pre-Alerts. Ali-Hills play a system slightly less complex than heavily-tweaked Precision. Against other Canberra semi-experts who have played against us zillions of times before we merely remind them of our predilection for Stone Age penalty doubles (we play negative doubles only if we open the bidding with 1C or 1D). Against novices from Western Australia visiting Canberra we provide much more detail (while trying to avoid baffling them with information overload). So against such novices we warn them to enquire about our variable defensive methods when one of them is declarer, describe to them our opening bids and artificial relay style (joking(1) that perhaps we should save time by Alerting our natural bids), and advise them of our predilection for Stone Age penalty doubles. Best wishes Richard Hills (1) In my opinion, friendly banter and jokes by semi-experts with novices costs nothing, and creates a pleasant atmosphere. Most novices expect to lose to better players (and I make a point of always personally congratulating a novice team that defeats my team in a Swiss match), so why not make the almost inevitable defeat more enjoyable for them? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110510/1ef24704/attachment-0001.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Tue May 10 10:17:17 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:17:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Who can appeal this? Message-ID: <4DC8F48D.9090807@gmail.com> Here is a case from a local competition: X teams play a round robin, with the top team promoted to a higher division in the next season and the bottom teams relegated to a lower division. After all rounds have been played, the scores are: N. Team A 273.5 VP --------------------------- N+1. Team B 273 N+2. Team C 261.5 Which means that teams B and C are relegated and A is not. There is a problem though. In the last round teams A and C played each other, and the TD assigned a 0.5 VP slow play penalty to teams A and C, resulting in a score of team A 7.5 VP - team C 22.5 VP. The captain of team B notices that the TD has misapplied the rules for slow play penalties and a correct interpretation of the rules would result in a 1 or 1.5 VP penalty for team A, and 0 or 0.5 for team C. That would reduce the score of team A to 273 or 272.5 VP, with the tie-breaking rules such that team A would be relegated in case A and B both score 273. The captain of team B tells the TD but the TD sticks to his original interpretation. Obviously, the captain of team A disagrees with the captain of team B, but then, it would be stupid for him to do otherwise. The captain of team C does not care. Team B is clearly interested in a correct interpretation of the rules. Who, if anybody, can appeal the decision by the TD? Henk From petereidt at t-online.de Tue May 10 10:33:19 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:33:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Who_can_appeal_this=3F?= In-Reply-To: <4DC8F48D.9090807@gmail.com> References: <4DC8F48D.9090807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1QJiNb-23Py3k0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Hi Henk, as you - of course - know, Law 92 A only allows for appeals against TD decisions that were made at one's own table(s). So the answer to your question below is: team A and / or team C but not team B. The question is whether team B can report this to the TO and whether this may have consequences for the TD's future appointments - in case he really misinterpreted the rules and in case those rules were not in contrast to the Laws. From: Henk Uijterwaal > Here is a case from a local competition: > > X teams play a round robin, with the top team promoted to a higher > division in the next season and the bottom teams relegated to a lower > division. After all rounds have been played, the scores are: > > N. Team A 273.5 VP > --------------------------- > N+1. Team B 273 > N+2. Team C 261.5 > > Which means that teams B and C are relegated and A is not. > > There is a problem though. In the last round teams A and C played > each other, and the TD assigned a 0.5 VP slow play penalty to teams A > and C, resulting in a score of team A 7.5 VP - team C 22.5 VP. > > The captain of team B notices that the TD has misapplied the rules for > slow play penalties and a correct interpretation of the rules would > result in a 1 or 1.5 VP penalty for team A, and 0 or 0.5 for team C. > That would reduce the score of team A to 273 or 272.5 VP, with the > tie-breaking rules such that team A would be relegated in case A and B > both score 273. > > The captain of team B tells the TD but the TD sticks to his original > interpretation. > > Obviously, the captain of team A disagrees with the captain of team B, > but then, it would be stupid for him to do otherwise. The captain of > team C does not care. Team B is clearly interested in a correct > interpretation of the rules. > > Who, if anybody, can appeal the decision by the TD? > > Henk From svenpran at online.no Tue May 10 11:10:02 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:10:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Who can appeal this? In-Reply-To: <1QJiNb-23Py3k0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> References: <4DC8F48D.9090807@gmail.com> <1QJiNb-23Py3k0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003601cc0ef2$0c22bf20$24683d60$@no> This raises an interesting question: If a contestant calls the Director's attention to the fact that the Director has violated Law 81B2, and requests a rectification of this violation then the Director obviously must make a decision on this request. At which table has this decision been made for the purpose of applying Law 92A? I would tend to rule that if the contestant in question has a demonstrable reason for requesting a rectification then he must also be entitled to appeal the Director's decision on this request. > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Eidt > Sent: 10. mai 2011 10:33 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Who can appeal this? > > Hi Henk, > > as you - of course - know, Law 92 A only allows for appeals > against TD decisions that were made at one's own table(s). > So the answer to your question below is: team A and / or team C > but not team B. > The question is whether team B can report this to the TO and > whether this may have consequences for the TD's future > appointments - in case he really misinterpreted the rules and > in case those rules were not in contrast to the Laws. > > > > From: Henk Uijterwaal > > Here is a case from a local competition: > > > > X teams play a round robin, with the top team promoted to a higher > > division in the next season and the bottom teams relegated to a lower > > division. After all rounds have been played, the scores are: > > > > N. Team A 273.5 VP > > --------------------------- > > N+1. Team B 273 > > N+2. Team C 261.5 > > > > Which means that teams B and C are relegated and A is not. > > > > There is a problem though. In the last round teams A and C played > > each other, and the TD assigned a 0.5 VP slow play penalty to teams A > > and C, resulting in a score of team A 7.5 VP - team C 22.5 VP. > > > > The captain of team B notices that the TD has misapplied the rules > for > > slow play penalties and a correct interpretation of the rules would > > result in a 1 or 1.5 VP penalty for team A, and 0 or 0.5 for team C. > > That would reduce the score of team A to 273 or 272.5 VP, with the > > tie-breaking rules such that team A would be relegated in case A and > B > > both score 273. > > > > The captain of team B tells the TD but the TD sticks to his original > > interpretation. > > > > Obviously, the captain of team A disagrees with the captain of team > B, > > but then, it would be stupid for him to do otherwise. The captain > of > > team C does not care. Team B is clearly interested in a correct > > interpretation of the rules. > > > > Who, if anybody, can appeal the decision by the TD? > > > > Henk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Tue May 10 11:45:31 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:45:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Who_can_appeal_this=3F?= In-Reply-To: <003601cc0ef2$0c22bf20$24683d60$@no> References: <003601cc0ef2$0c22bf20$24683d60$@no> Message-ID: <1QJjVU-036UEa0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > This raises an interesting question: > If a contestant calls the Director's attention to the fact that the > Director has violated Law 81B2, and requests a rectification of this > violation then the Director obviously must make a decision on this > request. The contestant may draw the TD's attention to that fact and if the TD comes to the conclusion that he (the TD) is in error the TD (normally) will reconsider his decision. But if the TD believes that he's right he will not change his decision and the contestant will only be allowed to appeal the TD's decision if it's a decision at his own table(s). And I believe this a good law, because otherwise many contestants will appeal against whatever decision or non-decision and you'll never come to the end of a tournament. > At which table has this decision been made for the purpose of applying > Law 92A? > > I would tend to rule that if the contestant in question has a > demonstrable reason for requesting a rectification then he must also > be entitled to appeal the Director's decision on this request. > > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > Sent: 10. mai 2011 10:33 > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Who can appeal this? > > > > Hi Henk, > > > > as you - of course - know, Law 92 A only allows for appeals > > against TD decisions that were made at one's own table(s). > > So the answer to your question below is: team A and / or team C but > > not team B. > > The question is whether team B can report this to the TO and > > whether this may have consequences for the TD's future > > appointments - in case he really misinterpreted the rules and in > > case those rules were not in contrast to the Laws. > > > > > > > > From: Henk Uijterwaal > > > > > Here is a case from a local competition: > > > > > > X teams play a round robin, with the top team promoted to a higher > > > division in the next season and the bottom teams relegated to a > > > lower division. After all rounds have been played, the scores > > > are: > > > > > > N. Team A 273.5 VP > > > --------------------------- > > > N+1. Team B 273 > > > N+2. Team C 261.5 > > > > > > Which means that teams B and C are relegated and A is not. > > > > > > There is a problem though. In the last round teams A and C played > > > each other, and the TD assigned a 0.5 VP slow play penalty to > > > teams A and C, resulting in a score of team A 7.5 VP - team C 22.5 > > > VP. > > > > > > > > > The captain of team B notices that the TD has misapplied the rules > > > > > for > > > slow play penalties and a correct interpretation of the rules > > > would result in a 1 or 1.5 VP penalty for team A, and 0 or 0.5 for > > > team C. > > > That would reduce the score of team A to 273 or 272.5 VP, with the > > > tie-breaking rules such that team A would be relegated in case A > > > and > > B > > > both score 273. > > > > > > The captain of team B tells the TD but the TD sticks to his > > > original interpretation. > > > > > > > > > Obviously, the captain of team A disagrees with the captain of > > > team > > B, > > > but then, it would be stupid for him to do otherwise. The > > > captain > > of > > > team C does not care. Team B is clearly interested in a correct > > > interpretation of the rules. > > > > > > > > > Who, if anybody, can appeal the decision by the TD? > > > > > > Henk > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 svenpran at online.no Tue May 10 11:55:18 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:55:18 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Who can appeal this? In-Reply-To: <1QJjVU-036UEa0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <003601cc0ef2$0c22bf20$24683d60$@no> <1QJjVU-036UEa0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003a01cc0ef8$5ed271b0$1c775510$@no> There is always the possibility of sanctions under Law 93C1 against an appeal without merit. I have a big problem accepting that the Director's judgment decision on interpretation of law or regulation cannot be appealed by a contestant directly influenced by such decision. Note that this is not a question about appealing the original decision (PP for slow play) > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Eidt > Sent: 10. mai 2011 11:46 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Who can appeal this? > > From: "Sven Pran" > > This raises an interesting question: > > If a contestant calls the Director's attention to the fact that the > > Director has violated Law 81B2, and requests a rectification of this > > violation then the Director obviously must make a decision on this > > request. > > > The contestant may draw the TD's attention to that fact > and if the TD comes to the conclusion that he (the TD) is > in error the TD (normally) will reconsider his decision. > But if the TD believes that he's right he will not change his > decision and the contestant will only be allowed to appeal > the TD's decision if it's a decision at his own table(s). > > And I believe this a good law, because otherwise many > contestants will appeal against whatever decision or > non-decision and you'll never come to the end of a tournament. > > > > At which table has this decision been made for the purpose of > applying > > Law 92A? > > > > I would tend to rule that if the contestant in question has a > > demonstrable reason for requesting a rectification then he must also > > be entitled to appeal the Director's decision on this request. > > > > > > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Peter Eidt > > > Sent: 10. mai 2011 10:33 > > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Fwd: Who can appeal this? > > > > > > Hi Henk, > > > > > > as you - of course - know, Law 92 A only allows for appeals > > > against TD decisions that were made at one's own table(s). > > > So the answer to your question below is: team A and / or team C but > > > not team B. > > > The question is whether team B can report this to the TO and > > > whether this may have consequences for the TD's future > > > appointments - in case he really misinterpreted the rules and in > > > case those rules were not in contrast to the Laws. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Henk Uijterwaal > > > > > > > Here is a case from a local competition: > > > > > > > > X teams play a round robin, with the top team promoted to a > higher > > > > division in the next season and the bottom teams relegated to a > > > > lower division. After all rounds have been played, the scores > > > > are: > > > > > > > > N. Team A 273.5 VP > > > > --------------------------- > > > > N+1. Team B 273 > > > > N+2. Team C 261.5 > > > > > > > > Which means that teams B and C are relegated and A is not. > > > > > > > > There is a problem though. In the last round teams A and C > played > > > > each other, and the TD assigned a 0.5 VP slow play penalty to > > > > teams A and C, resulting in a score of team A 7.5 VP - team C > 22.5 > > > > VP. > > > > > > > > > > > > The captain of team B notices that the TD has misapplied the > rules > > > > > > > for > > > > slow play penalties and a correct interpretation of the rules > > > > would result in a 1 or 1.5 VP penalty for team A, and 0 or 0.5 > for > > > > team C. > > > > That would reduce the score of team A to 273 or 272.5 VP, with > the > > > > tie-breaking rules such that team A would be relegated in case A > > > > and > > > B > > > > both score 273. > > > > > > > > The captain of team B tells the TD but the TD sticks to his > > > > original interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, the captain of team A disagrees with the captain of > > > > team > > > B, > > > > but then, it would be stupid for him to do otherwise. The > > > > captain > > > of > > > > team C does not care. Team B is clearly interested in a correct > > > > interpretation of the rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who, if anybody, can appeal the decision by the TD? > > > > > > > > Henk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blml mailing list > > > Blml at rtflb.org > > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 10 12:18:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 12:18:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DC910FA.3030304@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/05/2011 9:08, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, because partner's question is UI, the question's answer > which partner elicited is also UI. > > Brian Meadows: > > So if both players in a partnership want to know about the meaning of > a bid, in order for them not to be using UI, you are saying that the > exact same explanation must be given twice, once to each player? > > Assuming you are correct, then I think this is a case where the Laws > have a severe disconnect with the grass roots player. > > If I were playing with my regular partner, opponents would know before > starting play that we played a heavily-tweaked version of Precision. > Fine, so the 1C opener and 1D response are not likely to be a problem. > When the 1C opener rebids 1H, alerted, and next hand asks, and we > explain the Cambridge 1H Complex, not one player in 1000, having heard > us explain it to their partner, is going to ask for the explanation > again at their turn to call in order to avoid using UI. > > I can see the question creating UI, of course, that obviously has to > be likely, absent a rigorously-followed "*always* ask" policy - but > details of an opponent's system ought always to be AI, otherwise the > game is going to become farcical - especially if the microscopically > small percentage of club players who understand the situation should > call the TD because 4th hand didn't ask the same question again and is > thought to have used UI. That way lies madness, IMHO. > > Richard Hills: > > I agree with Brian and I disagree with myself. To be precise, I > disagree with my over-succinct and hence ambiguous posting above. In > almost all circumstances an opponent's answer is AI. The obvious time > an answer is UI is when pard has asked an illegal "Kaplan question", > prohibited by Law 20G1. > > I agree with Brian that an opponent's answer to pard's question about > RHO's 1H rebid is AI when both partners have a false idea about RHO's > 1H rebid but neither partner has yet acted on that false idea. > > But once you have misbid due to a misapprehension about the opponent's > system, clarification of that misapprehension by partner (in my > opinion) is equally UI whether partner announces, "I see by your > system card that the alerted 1H rebid is not somewhat natural, but > rather is the Cambridge 1H Complex," or whether partner asks, "Is 1H > the Cambridge 1H Complex?" or whether partner asks, "Why the alert of 1H?" > AG : I think it's time for me to say more about the deal. My hand was : KQx - Jxx - AQx - KQxx. Because it's borderline between a takeout double and a Weiss double, and because doubles aren't alerted, and because partner would have given the right explanation based on the explanation he got from the 2H bid, there is no way for opponents to know that I misunderstood their bid (which they aren't entitled to), and there is no way for them to know that I have possibly used UI (as it is dependent on the misunderstanding). This use of UI (if indeed U) is so difficult to catch that it would be unefficient to deem it penalizable, as some have pointed out. NB : the use of UI was marginal ; in defense against a bizarre contract, I played on the basis that partner, who was at the time known to hold the HA, didn't hold six spades, else he would have competed to 3S after my *takeout* double. But this defense was logical nevertheless. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110510/08b64797/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue May 10 15:01:29 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:01:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cc0e70$d5695d80$803c1880$@no> Message-ID: <5F82E3C0-F06A-456F-BE43-9F57D4436CF7@starpower.net> On May 9, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote > >> There can be no question that the information you received from your >> partner's question is UI to you. > > Really? You are South. West alerts. North asks, "please > explain." You are telling us that West's explanation is UI to me, > merely because North said "please explain?" > > Would you agree that you were perhaps slightly imprecise, and that > actually, the answer is AI, but North's question is UI? Sven, > would you be willing to accept this refinement of what you said? > > But also, if North was silent instead of asking "please explain," > then that is UI too. Am I right so far? > > It seems to me if North generally* asks when he does not know, > whether it affects his choice or not, the fact that North asked a > question provides no information, and therefore, no UI. Sven, can > you agree with that too? > > *Why "generally"? Many possibilities, such as the director has > ordered a quick completion to the round, or you have a vague > feeling of being behind, or perhaps you judge the director > unwilling to provide you protection for the UI you are about to > give to the opponents. I think these are the three reasons I > sometimes do not ask when I do not know. But with these > exceptions, I ask even when it could not possibly affect my action, > because I don't want to provide UI to my partner. Also, I like to > maintain a mental picture of the opponents' hands. > > I realize that in England and probably elsewhere, I should have a > good hand before asking what the opponents' alerts mean. I should > broadcast to both partner and opponents that I have a hand that is > considering action when I ask a question, and I should broadcast to > both partner and opponents that I do not have such a hand when > don't ask the question. What a crazy rule! The ACBL's way is so > much better! It seems obvious to me that if you do what you always > do and ask "Please explain," then you are providing no information > to partner, and therefore there is no UI. The ACBL's way is *bridge*. A good bridge player listens to his opponents' auction as the first step in constructing a mental picture of his opponents' respective holdings. He does this without regard to -- or foreknowledge of -- whether it will directly affect some subsequent action. The disclosure rules must make this possible, not prevent it. The English rule leaves the "Kaplan paradigm" in ruins, and defeats the fundamental notion of full disclosure. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Tue May 10 16:37:58 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:37:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: <5F82E3C0-F06A-456F-BE43-9F57D4436CF7@starpower.net> References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> <000c01cc0e70$d5695d80$803c1880$@no> <5F82E3C0-F06A-456F-BE43-9F57D4436CF7@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01cc0f1f$db71e8a0$9255b9e0$@no> I have to modify my opinion, it was based on inaccurate translation of Law 73B1 to Norwegian. According to Law 73B1 information is UI when it derives from questions asked or not asked of opponents and answers given or not given to opponents. The logical inference from this is that answers from opponents are AI to both the player that asked the question and his partner. > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Eric Landau > Sent: 10. mai 2011 15:01 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] UI ? > > On May 9, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote > > > >> There can be no question that the information you received from your > >> partner's question is UI to you. > > > > Really? You are South. West alerts. North asks, "please > > explain." You are telling us that West's explanation is UI to me, > > merely because North said "please explain?" > > > > Would you agree that you were perhaps slightly imprecise, and that > > actually, the answer is AI, but North's question is UI? Sven, > > would you be willing to accept this refinement of what you said? > > > > But also, if North was silent instead of asking "please explain," > > then that is UI too. Am I right so far? > > > > It seems to me if North generally* asks when he does not know, > > whether it affects his choice or not, the fact that North asked a > > question provides no information, and therefore, no UI. Sven, can > > you agree with that too? > > > > *Why "generally"? Many possibilities, such as the director has > > ordered a quick completion to the round, or you have a vague > > feeling of being behind, or perhaps you judge the director > > unwilling to provide you protection for the UI you are about to > > give to the opponents. I think these are the three reasons I > > sometimes do not ask when I do not know. But with these > > exceptions, I ask even when it could not possibly affect my action, > > because I don't want to provide UI to my partner. Also, I like to > > maintain a mental picture of the opponents' hands. > > > > I realize that in England and probably elsewhere, I should have a > > good hand before asking what the opponents' alerts mean. I should > > broadcast to both partner and opponents that I have a hand that is > > considering action when I ask a question, and I should broadcast to > > both partner and opponents that I do not have such a hand when > > don't ask the question. What a crazy rule! The ACBL's way is so > > much better! It seems obvious to me that if you do what you always > > do and ask "Please explain," then you are providing no information > > to partner, and therefore there is no UI. > > The ACBL's way is *bridge*. > > A good bridge player listens to his opponents' auction as the first > step in constructing a mental picture of his opponents' respective > holdings. He does this without regard to -- or foreknowledge of -- > whether it will directly affect some subsequent action. The > disclosure rules must make this possible, not prevent it. The > English rule leaves the "Kaplan paradigm" in ruins, and defeats the > fundamental notion of full disclosure. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue May 10 18:42:30 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:42:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] I am getting tired of intentional misquotes on BLML Message-ID: >From past BLML experiences, my guess is that one or two BLMLers will agree with me in theory, but no one will in practice. I would like to know why no one cares about this. One BLML poster continues to misquote other BLML posters. He has done this dozens of times, perhaps hundreds, perhaps more. He writes something in the manner that looks like a quote, but he makes changes, still leaving it looking like a verbatim quote. I think it is wrong, and I think it should stop. Here is an example from the current UI thread. [Quote attributed to?Sven Pran by Richard Hills:] There can be no question that the information Alain received from Alain's partner's question is UI to Alain. However, I agree with Herman that when Alain eventually would have a reason to ask (for instance because of a surprising development in the auction) the information Alain received from Alain's partner's question is AI to Alain to the extent that you would receive the same information from Alain's own (delayed) question. [What Sven actually wrote:] There?can?be?no?question?that?the information you received from your partner's?question?is UI to you. However, I agree with Herman?that?when you eventually would have a reason to ask (for instance because of a surprising development in the auction) the information you received from your partner's?question?is AI to you to the extent?that?you would receive the same information from your own (delayed) question. [my comment] Please, Richard, if you want to change words to clarify what you think a quote means, then please put your substituted words into square brackets, which look like this: []. If you do this, then you have a chance of behaving honestly. Still, if you get the meaning wrong with your bracketed changes, it's your bad. And if you get the meaning intentionally wrong with your changes, then you have perpetrated a form of Internet evil. Or if you want to paraphrase, don't use the quotes or the style of quotations, just paraphrase. You still have a fiduciary responsibility to get it right. I find Sven's statement much clearer than Richard's "fix," for Sven's statement at the time was meant generally, not specifically to Alain. Also, Richard did not change every "you" to "Alain," so he messed up his "fix" even if it might have been a good idea. I have gotten to the point that I seldom read posts from intentional misquoters. It wastes too much to time to go back and see if what Mr. Misquoter has claimed someone wrote really happened. Is it possible to get only the good stuff from Richard Hills, with honest, accurate quotes? Is it possible that even one poster on BLML will agree with me on this in any way that matters? Jerry Fusselman From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 10 20:12:22 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:12:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This does not answer my question. My question is why the laws insist that a player correct an unestablished revoke but do not require a player to correct an established revoke. My question is about a choice, presumably made by the people who construct the laws, about what would be good for the game of bridge. If you want the question another way -- given that there was some good reason for not requiring players to reveal their established revokes, why doesn't this same good reason apply to unestablished revokes? I can't see how it would make the game worse if players were not required to reveal either. Richard's answer is more a technical answer about how one might derive this distinction from the laws. And I don't think it works. I am pretty sure that the revoke itself is the infraction. It seems odd, and egregiously complicated, to think of the conversion of an unestablished revoke to an established revoke as being an infraction. On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:23:07 -0400, wrote: > > Law 72B2: > > "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law > committed > by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see > Laws > 62A and 79A2)." > > =+= > > What is the logic behind requiring players to report their unestablished > revokes and allowing them to hide their established revokes? > > =+= > > This is two questions compressed into one. > > Also, in my opinion, "revoke" is two infractions compressed into one. In > my > opinion an "established revoke" is distinct from an "unestablished > revoke" > and indeed the two different infractions require two different > rectifications. > > If one adopts this worldview, then the Law 62A requirement to draw > attention to one's just-discovered unestablished revoke = a Law 62A > requirement to avoid committing an intentional new infraction of an > established revoke = a special case of the Law 72B1 requirement to avoid > an > intentional infraction. > > As for the second question, to reveal one's unintentional established > revokes against one's own interests is (for me personally) a matter of > when, not whether. Law 72B2 uses the curious phrase "no obligation to", > which thereby legalises masochism. I am a partial masochist, so I choose > to > reveal my unintentional established revokes "after a member of the > non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal". I therefore > avoid an arbitrary Law 64A mechanical rectification, but I still > volunteer > for a Law 64C equity rectification. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section > Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 11 01:29:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:29:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] I am getting tired of intentional misquotes on BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: ..... Is it possible that even one poster on BLML will agree with me on this in any way that matters? Richard Hills: Yes, I agree that I erred. I should have used square brackets, writing "[Alain]" instead of merely "Alain". My apologies to Sven Pran (the author of the original post). Jerry Fusselman: ..... then you have a chance of behaving honestly ..... Richard Hills: Note that this was a careless, unintentional [ergo honest] error. As proof, I refer blmlers to my earlier post of 9th May 2011, when I did use [] square brackets to indicate a paraphrase of the views of Steve Willner. Jerry Fusselman: ..... Is it possible to get only the good stuff from Richard Hills ..... Richard Hills: The lesson on "good stuff" from Jerry is definitively correct, even if Jerry's reasons are partially incorrect. As the quartus inter pares of blml I have a solemn duty to minimise my careless errors. Thank you, Jerry, for your very useful advice. Proverbs 25:11 "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110510/f7bea8a3/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed May 11 08:19:39 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:19:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/5/10 Robert Frick : > This does not answer my question. My question is why the laws insist that > a player correct an unestablished revoke but do not require a player to > correct an established revoke. > > My question is about a choice, presumably made by the people who construct > the laws, about what would be good for the game of bridge. > > If you want the question another way -- given that there was some good > reason for not requiring players to reveal their established revokes, why > doesn't this same good reason apply to unestablished revokes? I can't see > how it would make the game worse if players were not required to reveal > either. > > Richard's answer is more a technical answer about how one might derive > this distinction from the laws. And I don't think it works. I am pretty > sure that the revoke itself is the infraction. It seems odd, and > egregiously complicated, to think of the conversion of an unestablished > revoke to an established revoke as being an infraction. > I think the answer to this is quite simple. You have to follow suit when you're able to. Thus, correcting a revoke when you discover your error is what you have to do - following suit is essential. But obviously, there's got to be a limit to when this can happen. Suppose you revoke at trick one and discover this five tricks later. Correcting the revoke at this time is meaningless. So the lawmakers have decided that the limit for correcting a revoke is before either player of the defending side leads to the next trick. After that it's too late to correct the revoke. It's become established. > > On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:23:07 -0400, wrote: > >> >> Law 72B2: >> >> "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law >> committed >> by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see >> Laws >> 62A and 79A2)." >> >> =+= >> >> What is the logic behind requiring players to report their unestablished >> revokes and allowing them to hide their established revokes? >> >> =+= >> >> This is two questions compressed into one. >> >> Also, in my opinion, "revoke" is two infractions compressed into one. In >> my >> opinion an "established revoke" is distinct from an "unestablished >> revoke" >> and indeed the two different infractions require two different >> rectifications. >> >> If one adopts this worldview, then the Law 62A requirement to draw >> attention to one's just-discovered unestablished revoke = a Law 62A >> requirement to avoid committing an intentional new infraction of an >> established revoke = a special case of the Law 72B1 requirement to avoid >> an >> intentional infraction. >> >> As for the second question, to reveal one's unintentional established >> revokes against one's own interests is (for me personally) a matter of >> when, not whether. Law 72B2 uses the curious phrase "no obligation to", >> which thereby legalises masochism. I am a partial masochist, so I choose >> to >> reveal my unintentional established revokes "after a member of the >> non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal". I therefore >> avoid an arbitrary Law 64A mechanical rectification, but I still >> volunteer >> for a Law 64C equity rectification. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section >> Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 >> DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. ?This >> email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. ?Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. ?DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. ?The official departmental >> privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. >> See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -- > http://somepsychology.com > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Wed May 11 08:52:23 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:52:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] I am getting tired of intentional misquotes on BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000901cc0fa7$fb7e8670$f27b9350$@no> Relax, no hard feelings. Regards Sven From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 11. mai 2011 01:30 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] I am getting tired of intentional misquotes on BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ... Yes, I agree that I erred. I should have used square brackets, writing "[Alain]" instead of merely "Alain". My apologies to Sven Pran (the author of the original post). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110511/f2b7b067/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed May 11 08:55:15 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 08:55:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] I am getting tired of intentional misquotes on BLML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DCA32D3.7020200@gmail.com> Jerry and others, > Is it possible that even one poster on BLML > will agree with me on this in any way that matters? As BLML moderator, I agree, and my vote counts double ;-) If you quote, quote the entire text. If you have to change text in order to keep it readable, use the standard convention to put the changes between square brackets in order to make it clear that the text was changed. (That is "he said" becomes "[john] said". "The contract, on a double backwash squeeze followed by an endplay, is cold" becomes "the contract [...] is cold". Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 11 15:26:02 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:26:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <357083C1-3ADC-40BE-9DA5-3E3A42ECDF05@starpower.net> On May 10, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > This does not answer my question. My question is why the laws > insist that > a player correct an unestablished revoke but do not require a > player to > correct an established revoke. > > My question is about a choice, presumably made by the people who > construct > the laws, about what would be good for the game of bridge. > > If you want the question another way -- given that there was some good > reason for not requiring players to reveal their established > revokes, why > doesn't this same good reason apply to unestablished revokes? I > can't see > how it would make the game worse if players were not required to > reveal > either. > > Richard's answer is more a technical answer about how one might derive > this distinction from the laws. And I don't think it works. I am > pretty > sure that the revoke itself is the infraction. It seems odd, and > egregiously complicated, to think of the conversion of an > unestablished > revoke to an established revoke as being an infraction. There is no feasible way to "correct" an established revoke, given that it might not be noticed until several tricks after it occurred. One can only acknowledge it, which leads to its being rectified after the deal has been played (via L64). It is widely held to be "good for the game of bridge", when possible, for irregularities to be rectified "on the fly" so that the hand can continue to be played out to a valid table result, rather than force an adjudicated result to be more-or-less arbitrarily determined after the hand has been played. The requirement that one acknowledge an unestablished revoke if one becomes aware of it before it is established serves this goal, whereas requiring acknowledgement of an established revoke would not. This might sensibly explain the apparent inconsistency. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed May 11 15:58:40 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:58:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <357083C1-3ADC-40BE-9DA5-3E3A42ECDF05@starpower.net> References: <357083C1-3ADC-40BE-9DA5-3E3A42ECDF05@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4DCA9610.508@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/05/2011 15:26, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On May 10, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This does not answer my question. My question is why the laws >> insist that >> a player correct an unestablished revoke but do not require a >> player to >> correct an established revoke. >> >> My question is about a choice, presumably made by the people who >> construct >> the laws, about what would be good for the game of bridge. >> >> If you want the question another way -- given that there was some good >> reason for not requiring players to reveal their established >> revokes, why >> doesn't this same good reason apply to unestablished revokes? I >> can't see >> how it would make the game worse if players were not required to >> reveal >> either. >> >> Richard's answer is more a technical answer about how one might derive >> this distinction from the laws. And I don't think it works. I am >> pretty >> sure that the revoke itself is the infraction. It seems odd, and >> egregiously complicated, to think of the conversion of an >> unestablished >> revoke to an established revoke as being an infraction. > There is no feasible way to "correct" an established revoke, given > that it might not be noticed until several tricks after it occurred. > One can only acknowledge it, which leads to its being rectified after > the deal has been played (via L64). > > It is widely held to be "good for the game of bridge", when possible, > for irregularities to be rectified "on the fly" so that the hand can > continue to be played out to a valid table result, rather than force > an adjudicated result to be more-or-less arbitrarily determined after > the hand has been played. The requirement that one acknowledge an > unestablished revoke if one becomes aware of it before it is > established serves this goal, whereas requiring acknowledgement of an > established revoke would not. This might sensibly explain the > apparent inconsistency. > AG : agreed ; but that doesn't mean that there is no risk of it being seen as unconsistent by non-specialists, a defect that many consider nonnegligible. See, for example, the requirement that no bid or double be alerted above some set level, while passes still have to be alerted. Logical, but rather unconsistent. A fortiori, the requirement (seen in some countries) that some bid always be alerted (1NT-2S ?) Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 11 21:43:53 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:43:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: <357083C1-3ADC-40BE-9DA5-3E3A42ECDF05@starpower.net> References: <357083C1-3ADC-40BE-9DA5-3E3A42ECDF05@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:26:02 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On May 10, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This does not answer my question. My question is why the laws >> insist that >> a player correct an unestablished revoke but do not require a >> player to >> correct an established revoke. >> >> My question is about a choice, presumably made by the people who >> construct >> the laws, about what would be good for the game of bridge. >> >> If you want the question another way -- given that there was some good >> reason for not requiring players to reveal their established >> revokes, why >> doesn't this same good reason apply to unestablished revokes? I >> can't see >> how it would make the game worse if players were not required to >> reveal >> either. >> >> Richard's answer is more a technical answer about how one might derive >> this distinction from the laws. And I don't think it works. I am >> pretty >> sure that the revoke itself is the infraction. It seems odd, and >> egregiously complicated, to think of the conversion of an >> unestablished >> revoke to an established revoke as being an infraction. > > There is no feasible way to "correct" an established revoke, given > that it might not be noticed until several tricks after it occurred. > One can only acknowledge it, which leads to its being rectified after > the deal has been played (via L64). > > It is widely held to be "good for the game of bridge", when possible, > for irregularities to be rectified "on the fly" so that the hand can > continue to be played out to a valid table result, rather than force > an adjudicated result to be more-or-less arbitrarily determined after > the hand has been played. The requirement that one acknowledge an > unestablished revoke if one becomes aware of it before it is > established serves this goal, whereas requiring acknowledgement of an > established revoke would not. This might sensibly explain the > apparent inconsistency. I had not thought about that. But... correcting the revoke usually creates a penalty card. Which is more disruptive to a normal table result? Worse, when a player would choose not to correct the unestablished revoke, that is probably because the penalty card disrupts normal play more than the revoke penalty. This can be seen in Konrad's example. Not correcting the revoke leads to relatively normal play. Correcting the revoke leads to a bizarre outcome (leading low from a running suit), one the player would prefer to avoid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 12 19:14:11 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:14:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? Message-ID: They ask if the contract is 4S by East. Their opponents answer yes. The actual contract is 4S by West. So there is an opening lead out of turn. Is there any official guidance on this or an consensus? The problem is that people don't pay that much attention to the East/West distinction. So from the perspective of NS, it was really just a question about the contract. Bob F., who always meant to ask this but never did and now regrets his lack of action because it came up today From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Thu May 12 19:21:20 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:21:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> 47e1 Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual On 12 May 2011, at 18:14, "Robert Frick" wrote: > They ask if the contract is 4S by East. Their opponents answer yes. The > actual contract is 4S by West. So there is an opening lead out of turn. Is > there any official guidance on this or an consensus? > > The problem is that people don't pay that much attention to the East/West > distinction. So from the perspective of NS, it was really just a question > about the contract. > > Bob F., who always meant to ask this but never did and now regrets his > lack of action because it came up today > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu May 12 21:15:17 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > 47e1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play." And of course it is up to me to interpret this, but if there was guidance or consensus I would like to follow that. > > Sent from my iPhone so may be more terse than usual > > On 12 May 2011, at 18:14, "Robert Frick" wrote: > >> They ask if the contract is 4S by East. Their opponents answer yes. The >> actual contract is 4S by West. So there is an opening lead out of turn. >> Is >> there any official guidance on this or an consensus? >> >> The problem is that people don't pay that much attention to the >> East/West >> distinction. So from the perspective of NS, it was really just a >> question >> about the contract. >> >> Bob F., who always meant to ask this but never did and now regrets his >> lack of action because it came up today >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From swillner at nhcc.net Fri May 13 03:05:30 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:05:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DCC83DA.8030905@nhcc.net> On 5/9/2011 10:43 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > RHO opens 2H. ... I think it is "weak Flannery" > and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the2H bid, is > told ... > 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my strong > 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) > 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions (or, > as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play L16A1c says that information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations" is authorized. Which information in the above does not fit that category? Or is there some other Law that makes it UI? I think Sven has it right the second time around. Alain's partner has UI from Alain's failure to ask about 2H, but it's far from clear what that UI suggests. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 13 04:06:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:06:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] UI ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DCC83DA.8030905@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner (as quoted by Steve Willner) wrote: RHO opens 2H. ... I think it is "weak Flannery" and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the 2H bid, is told ... 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my strong 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions (or, as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play Steve Willner (as quoted by Richard Hills) wrote: L16A1c says that information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations" is authorized. Which information in the above does not fit that category? Or is there some other Law that makes it UI? Richard Hills (as quoted by Hilda R. Lirsch): It seems to me that if Law 16A1(c) was a blmler who previously posted to blml, then Law 16A1(c) could justly claim to have had her post snipped of highly relevant information (i.e. a misquotation). Law 16A1(c): " ... (but see B1 following)" Heading of Law 16B1: "Extraneous Information From Partner" Richard Hills: If the question from partner was what Rumpole would call a leading question, then [Alain] would have had UI. But if [Alain's] partner neutrally asked, "Please explain?" then the extraneous information came from an opponent and thus not UI. I think Sven has it right the second time around. Steve Willner: I think Sven has it right the second time around. Alain's partner has UI from Alain's failure to ask about 2H, but it's far from clear what that UI suggests. Richard Hills: Yes and No. In my opinion it depends upon the length of the partnership. As discussed in an earlier thread, my logical alternatives are more often constrained when partnering Hashmat Ali than when partnering Klavs Kalejs simply because it is clear to me what regular partner Ali's UI suggests while it is not clear to me what casual partner Kalejs' UI suggests. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110513/a7d21758/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri May 13 09:44:07 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:44:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: <4DCC83DA.8030905@nhcc.net> References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> <4DCC83DA.8030905@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4DCCE147.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/05/2011 3:05, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 5/9/2011 10:43 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> RHO opens 2H. ... I think it is "weak Flannery" >> and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the2H bid, is >> told ... >> 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my strong >> 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) >> 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions (or, >> as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play > L16A1c says that information "arising from the legal procedures > authorized in these laws and in regulations" is authorized. Which > information in the above does not fit that category? Or is there some > other Law that makes it UI? > > I think Sven has it right the second time around. > > Alain's partner has UI from Alain's failure to ask about 2H, but it's > far from clear what that UI suggests. AG : this is impossible. It has been said before that you can have UI from partner's question. If there is UI from both actions, what can you do ? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 13 14:16:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:16:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] UI ? In-Reply-To: <4DCC83DA.8030905@nhcc.net> References: <4DC7FD8F.6030308@ulb.ac.be> <4DCC83DA.8030905@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 May 2011 21:05:30 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 5/9/2011 10:43 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> RHO opens 2H. ... I think it is "weak Flannery" >> and double (optional). West bids 3C and partner asks about the2H bid, is >> told ... >> 1) I know that I made a wrong bid (well, only perhaps, because my strong >> 3334 could double a weak 2-bid for takeout too) >> 2) I know how partner understood my double, whence what his actions (or, >> as here, inaction) mean, and this had some impact on the play > > L16A1c says that information "arising from the legal procedures > authorized in these laws and in regulations" is authorized. Which > information in the above does not fit that category? Or is there some > other Law that makes it UI? You are trying to use L16A for guidance? I would not recommend that. We know that information from the opponent's alerts, explanations, etc. is AI and information from partner's unexpected alerts, explanations, etc. is UI. Right, according to L16A, the opponent's explanations are AI, assuming they are part of the procedures of the game. But then L16A says that partner's explanations are AI for exactly the same reason. So it's really kind of a coincidence that L16A gets it right, and the only way we know it got it right was that we knew the answer in advance. > > I think Sven has it right the second time around. > > Alain's partner has UI from Alain's failure to ask about 2H, but it's > far from clear what that UI suggests. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 13 19:53:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:53:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 May 2011 02:19:39 -0400, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2011/5/10 Robert Frick : >> This does not answer my question. My question is why the laws insist >> that >> a player correct an unestablished revoke but do not require a player to >> correct an established revoke. >> >> My question is about a choice, presumably made by the people who >> construct >> the laws, about what would be good for the game of bridge. >> >> If you want the question another way -- given that there was some good >> reason for not requiring players to reveal their established revokes, >> why >> doesn't this same good reason apply to unestablished revokes? I can't >> see >> how it would make the game worse if players were not required to reveal >> either. >> >> Richard's answer is more a technical answer about how one might derive >> this distinction from the laws. And I don't think it works. I am pretty >> sure that the revoke itself is the infraction. It seems odd, and >> egregiously complicated, to think of the conversion of an unestablished >> revoke to an established revoke as being an infraction. >> > I think the answer to this is quite simple. > You have to follow suit when you're able to. > Thus, correcting a revoke when you discover your error is what you > have to do - following suit is essential. The law you quote concerns following to a trick, not correcting a revoke. I think it's both convenient and necessary not to conflate the two. In particular, the law to follow suit claims precedence over all other laws. If correcting a revoke falls under this law, as you suggest, then even the revoke found 5 tricks later has to be corrected. That of course is not how the laws are interpreted or meant to be interpreted. > > But obviously, there's got to be a limit to when this can happen. > Suppose you revoke at trick one and discover this five tricks later. > Correcting the revoke at this time is meaningless. > So the lawmakers have decided that the limit for correcting a revoke > is before either player of the defending side leads to the next trick. > After that it's too late to correct the revoke. It's become > established. You are focusing on correcting the revoke, but there is also a question of why one has to report one revoke and can try to hide another. I can't do examples as well as Conrad, but suppose I am on lead against 3 NT with a 6 card running diamond suit. I realize my partner has revoked. Why I am not required to do anything to correct the revoke? Let's put that down as another question to ask -- why am I required to confess to my own unestablished revokes (if I become aware of them) but allowed to try to hide my partner's unestablished revokes? >> >> On Tue, 10 May 2011 00:23:07 -0400, wrote: >> >>> >>> Law 72B2: >>> >>> "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law >>> committed >>> by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see >>> Laws >>> 62A and 79A2)." >>> >>> =+= >>> >>> What is the logic behind requiring players to report their >>> unestablished >>> revokes and allowing them to hide their established revokes? >>> >>> =+= >>> >>> This is two questions compressed into one. >>> >>> Also, in my opinion, "revoke" is two infractions compressed into one. >>> In >>> my >>> opinion an "established revoke" is distinct from an "unestablished >>> revoke" >>> and indeed the two different infractions require two different >>> rectifications. >>> >>> If one adopts this worldview, then the Law 62A requirement to draw >>> attention to one's just-discovered unestablished revoke = a Law 62A >>> requirement to avoid committing an intentional new infraction of an >>> established revoke = a special case of the Law 72B1 requirement to >>> avoid >>> an >>> intentional infraction. >>> >>> As for the second question, to reveal one's unintentional established >>> revokes against one's own interests is (for me personally) a matter of >>> when, not whether. Law 72B2 uses the curious phrase "no obligation to", >>> which thereby legalises masochism. I am a partial masochist, so I >>> choose >>> to >>> reveal my unintentional established revokes "after a member of the >>> non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal". I therefore >>> avoid an arbitrary Law 64A mechanical rectification, but I still >>> volunteer >>> for a Law 64C equity rectification. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Richard Hills >>> Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section >>> Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 >>> DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >>> advise >>> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >>> email, >>> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >>> privileged >>> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, >>> dissemination >>> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >>> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >>> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >>> privacy >>> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. >>> See: >>> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://somepsychology.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- http://somepsychology.com From p.j.m.smulders at home.nl Sat May 14 15:51:51 2011 From: p.j.m.smulders at home.nl (Peter Smulders) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 15:51:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A revoke and a belated claim - what really happened In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110514135234.E25F5990C04C@relay2.webreus.nl> At 12:00 14-5-2011, Robert Frick wrote: >You are focusing on correcting the revoke, but there is also a question of >why one has to report one revoke and can try to hide another. > >I can't do examples as well as Conrad, but suppose I am on lead against 3 >NT with a 6 card running diamond suit. I realize my partner has revoked. >Why I am not required to do anything to correct the revoke? Let's put that >down as another question to ask -- why am I required to confess to my own >unestablished revokes (if I become aware of them) but allowed to try to >hide my partner's unestablished revokes? You are not required to squeal on your partner (L72B2). By the same law you don't have to draw attention to an established revoke of your side. Why does the law make an exception for non-established revokes? By not reporting such a revoke you prevent a simple correction of the situation, that does not entail an artificial transfer of 1 or 2 tricks. That is enough reason to applaud that exception. Besides it makes the TD's work simpler. From sater at xs4all.nl Sat May 14 22:34:02 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 22:34:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What with the fiver? Message-ID: <017601cc1276$4333f060$c99bd120$@nl> South plays some contract, irrelevant, West leads a small diamond, dummy comes down, and South thinks for a long time. Then he plays the D6 from dummy. East by now was completely bored, and thinking he was dummy started to put down his cards, starting with the diamond KQ753. Laughter all around, TD! What do you rule? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110514/69a06489/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Sat May 14 23:52:44 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 23:52:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What with the fiver? In-Reply-To: <017601cc1276$4333f060$c99bd120$@nl> References: <017601cc1276$4333f060$c99bd120$@nl> Message-ID: <002601cc1281$429cdf80$c7d69e80$@no> Law 49 of course - what else? There is a question how long "a long time" was. This has no impact on the Law 49 ruling above, but it just might give cause for a ruling under Law 73D2 and/or Law 74C7. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: 14. mai 2011 22:34 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] What with the fiver? South plays some contract, irrelevant, West leads a small diamond, dummy comes down, and South thinks for a long time. Then he plays the D6 from dummy. East by now was completely bored, and thinking he was dummy started to put down his cards, starting with the diamond KQ753. Laughter all around, TD! What do you rule? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110514/3a032104/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun May 15 06:30:42 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 12:30:42 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Carry over Query References: <017601cc1276$4333f060$c99bd120$@nl> <002601cc1281$429cdf80$c7d69e80$@no> Message-ID: <3FACB3C78A3642DFB86223DE2898022E@acer> I have just finished 3 sessions of a 13 table qualifying stage to qualify 5 NS and 5 EW pairs to a 3 session all play all final. What would you assess as a reasonable maximum number of tops allowed for this final. There were 8 tops from the first to the tenth qualifier cheers bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110515/c8b84bbf/attachment-0001.html From sater at xs4all.nl Sun May 15 11:11:52 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:11:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What with the fiver? In-Reply-To: <002601cc1281$429cdf80$c7d69e80$@no> References: <017601cc1276$4333f060$c99bd120$@nl> <002601cc1281$429cdf80$c7d69e80$@no> Message-ID: <019c01cc12e0$212f8b40$638ea1c0$@nl> Well, isn't there a case for 58B2? Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: zaterdag 14 mei 2011 23:53 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] What with the fiver? Law 49 of course - what else? There is a question how long "a long time" was. This has no impact on the Law 49 ruling above, but it just might give cause for a ruling under Law 73D2 and/or Law 74C7. From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Hans van Staveren Sent: 14. mai 2011 22:34 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: [BLML] What with the fiver? South plays some contract, irrelevant, West leads a small diamond, dummy comes down, and South thinks for a long time. Then he plays the D6 from dummy. East by now was completely bored, and thinking he was dummy started to put down his cards, starting with the diamond KQ753. Laughter all around, TD! What do you rule? Hans -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110515/2a24a07b/attachment.html From sater at xs4all.nl Sun May 15 11:13:57 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:13:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Carry over Query In-Reply-To: <3FACB3C78A3642DFB86223DE2898022E@acer> References: <017601cc1276$4333f060$c99bd120$@nl> <002601cc1281$429cdf80$c7d69e80$@no> <3FACB3C78A3642DFB86223DE2898022E@acer> Message-ID: <01a101cc12e0$6bd70650$438512f0$@nl> This should have been decided in advance of course, you really cannot decide this now. In advance I would have done something like taking the result from the semi-final as a fourth session in the final, in effect giving them 25% of their score carry-over. Hans From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Bill & Helen Kemp Sent: zondag 15 mei 2011 6:31 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Carry over Query I have just finished 3 sessions of a 13 table qualifying stage to qualify 5 NS and 5 EW pairs to a 3 session all play all final. What would you assess as a reasonable maximum number of tops allowed for this final. There were 8 tops from the first to the tenth qualifier cheers bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110515/edc10e8f/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Sun May 15 11:45:14 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 11:45:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?What_with_the_fiver=3F?= In-Reply-To: <019c01cc12e0$212f8b40$638ea1c0$@nl> References: <019c01cc12e0$212f8b40$638ea1c0$@nl> Message-ID: <1QLXsw-1bRebI0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> No, the cards were not played - the were merly put on the table; there were made visible. Peter From: "Hans van Staveren" > Well, isn't there a case for 58B2? > > Hans > > FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] ON > BEHALF OF Sven Pran > SENT: zaterdag 14 mei 2011 23:53 > TO: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > SUBJECT: Re: [BLML] What with the fiver? > > Law 49 of course - what else? > > There is a question how long "a long time" was. This has no impact on > the Law 49 ruling above, but it just might give cause for a ruling > under Law 73D2 and/or Law 74C7. > > FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] ON > BEHALF OF Hans van Staveren > SENT: 14. mai 2011 22:34 > TO: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > SUBJECT: [BLML] What with the fiver? > > South plays some contract, irrelevant, West leads a small diamond, > dummy comes down, and South thinks for a long time. Then he plays the > D6 from dummy. East by now was completely bored, and thinking he was > dummy started to put down his cards, starting with the diamond KQ753. > Laughter all around, TD! > > What do you rule? > > Hans From sater at xs4all.nl Sun May 15 12:55:40 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 12:55:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] What with the fiver? In-Reply-To: <1QLXsw-1bRebI0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> References: <019c01cc12e0$212f8b40$638ea1c0$@nl> <1QLXsw-1bRebI0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <01b701cc12ee$a15ee910$e41cbb30$@nl> For the sake of argument. Suppose East puts down one card, say the DK, and then wants to put down the rest but is prevented from doing so. It turns out he was bored, wanted to put down dummy, but happened to have the singleton DK. Would you rule the DK a played card or a penalty card? (I know it makes no difference in practice). Furthermore, suppose(right or wrong) you decide to use 58B anyhow. Doesn't that just give East the opportunity to choose in this trick? Doesn't this give the closest possible result to real bridge? As you understand probably by now I would rule 58B, although I understand the other ruling. It is just further away from real bridge for my taste. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eidt Sent: zondag 15 mei 2011 11:45 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What with the fiver? No, the cards were not played - the were merly put on the table; there were made visible. Peter From: "Hans van Staveren" > Well, isn't there a case for 58B2? > > Hans > > FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] ON > BEHALF OF Sven Pran > SENT: zaterdag 14 mei 2011 23:53 > TO: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > SUBJECT: Re: [BLML] What with the fiver? > > Law 49 of course - what else? > > There is a question how long "a long time" was. This has no impact on > the Law 49 ruling above, but it just might give cause for a ruling > under Law 73D2 and/or Law 74C7. > > FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] ON > BEHALF OF Hans van Staveren > SENT: 14. mai 2011 22:34 > TO: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > SUBJECT: [BLML] What with the fiver? > > South plays some contract, irrelevant, West leads a small diamond, > dummy comes down, and South thinks for a long time. Then he plays the > D6 from dummy. East by now was completely bored, and thinking he was > dummy started to put down his cards, starting with the diamond KQ753. > Laughter all around, TD! > > What do you rule? > > Hans _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From petereidt at t-online.de Sun May 15 15:51:27 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:51:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?What_with_the_fiver=3F?= In-Reply-To: <01b701cc12ee$a15ee910$e41cbb30$@nl> References: <01b701cc12ee$a15ee910$e41cbb30$@nl> Message-ID: <1QLbjD-15gEKG0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> From: "Hans van Staveren" > For the sake of argument. Suppose East puts down one card, say the DK, > and then wants to put down the rest but is prevented from doing so. It > turns out he was bored, wanted to put down dummy, but happened to have > the singleton DK. Would you rule the DK a played card or a penalty > card? (I know it makes no difference in practice). I still would rule under Law 49. > Furthermore, suppose(right or wrong) you decide to use 58B anyhow. > Doesn't that just give East the opportunity to choose in this trick? > Doesn't this give the closest possible result to real bridge? Maybe, but the law says someting different . Law 58B starts with: "If a player leads or plays ..." And putting down cards - as dummy - or letting them fall unintentionally is not playing that card(s). Peter > As you understand probably by now I would rule 58B, although I > understand the other ruling. It is just further away from real bridge > for my taste. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Eidt > Sent: zondag 15 mei 2011 11:45 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] What with the fiver? > > No, the cards were not played - the were merly put on the table; there > were made visible. > > Peter > > > From: "Hans van Staveren" > > > Well, isn't there a case for 58B2? > > > > Hans > > > > FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] ON > > BEHALF OF Sven Pran > > SENT: zaterdag 14 mei 2011 23:53 > > TO: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > > SUBJECT: Re: [BLML] What with the fiver? > > > > Law 49 of course - what else? > > > > There is a question how long "a long time" was. This has no impact > > on the Law 49 ruling above, but it just might give cause for a > > ruling under Law 73D2 and/or Law 74C7. > > > > FROM: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] ON > > BEHALF OF Hans van Staveren > > SENT: 14. mai 2011 22:34 > > TO: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > > SUBJECT: [BLML] What with the fiver? > > > > South plays some contract, irrelevant, West leads a small diamond, > > dummy comes down, and South thinks for a long time. Then he plays > > the D6 from dummy. East by now was completely bored, and thinking he > > was dummy started to put down his cards, starting with the diamond > > KQ753. > > Laughter all around, TD! > > > > What do you rule? > > > > Hans > > From swillner at nhcc.net Sun May 15 19:54:13 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 13:54:13 -0400 Subject: [BLML] What with the fiver? In-Reply-To: <01b701cc12ee$a15ee910$e41cbb30$@nl> References: <019c01cc12e0$212f8b40$638ea1c0$@nl> <1QLXsw-1bRebI0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <01b701cc12ee$a15ee910$e41cbb30$@nl> Message-ID: <4DD01345.3010203@nhcc.net> On 5/15/2011 6:55 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > suppose(right or wrong) you decide to use 58B anyhow. Doesn't > that just give East the opportunity to choose in this trick? Doesn't this > give the closest possible result to real bridge? Some while ago, before the 2007 revision, I suggested that the drafting committee might want to make the penalty for exposed cards different if they were exposed at the defender's own or his RHO's turn to play. The reasoning was that the exposed cards could not help the player's partner until the next trick. I still think that would be a good idea, but it's not what the current Laws say. Getting back to Hans' original case, if declarer's delay was far out of line for what was customary in that game, you could use L23 to adjust the score at the end. Or, as Sven suggested, L74C7. L81C5 is another one to consider. (I don't think 73D2 is likely to apply.) From swillner at nhcc.net Sun May 15 20:02:14 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:02:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Carry over Query In-Reply-To: <3FACB3C78A3642DFB86223DE2898022E@acer> References: <017601cc1276$4333f060$c99bd120$@nl> <002601cc1281$429cdf80$c7d69e80$@no> <3FACB3C78A3642DFB86223DE2898022E@acer> Message-ID: <4DD01526.8000208@nhcc.net> On 5/15/2011 12:30 AM, Bill & Helen Kemp wrote: > I have just finished 3 sessions of a 13 table qualifying stage to > qualify 5 NS and 5 EW pairs to a 3 session all play all final. What > would you assess as a reasonable maximum number of tops allowed for this > final. There were 8 tops from the first to the tenth qualifier As Hans wrote, this really should have been decided in advance. However, when the number of sessions is the same, isn't it customary to make the carryover equal to the fraction of qualifiers, 5/13 in this case? That would make it just over 3 tops, which looks about right to me. If the EBU White Book has anything to say on the subject, you could use that. Even though it isn't official in your jurisdiction, it's an objective source and well thought out. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 16 01:38:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:38:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Carry over Query [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DD01526.8000208@nhcc.net> Message-ID: EBU White Book 2010 Section 172 EBU Carry-forward Score Formula Contestants who qualify for the next stage of a competition may be awarded a carry-forward score in respect of their qualifying score, provided that all such contestants have been ranked as a single field. This is unusual in EBU events. The formula is: S x FT ---------- = C 2 x QT where C = the carry-forward score in MPs to be awarded to the contestant S = the qualifying score in MPs obtained by the contestant FT = MP top on a board in the final QT = MP top on a board in the qualifying stage MP = matchpoints Note The effect of this formula is such that if the two sessions are of equal length, then the final carries twice as much weight as the qualifier. This ratio varies as the respective lengths of the two stages vary. Fractions are resolved in the competitors' favour to the minimum unit of scoring in the final. Special tournament regulations are devised by the Tournament Committee to cater for contestants eliminated from a main event at different stages, for example joining a Swiss event. Details are available on request from EBU headquarters. Contact details can be found in #0.4 in Chapter I. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110515/ddb7941f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 16 04:17:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 12:17:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, pp 247, 250 and 251: The 120-plus pages of The Rules of Golf are a paradox. Despite their scrutiny of equipment, the USGA and its Scottish partner, the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, are astonishingly liberal about the design of courses. The hole must be a standard 4.25 inches (108mm) in diameter and at least 4 inches (100mm) deep, but otherwise definitions are minimal. A bunker consists of sand "or the like"; a water hazard is "any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch ... and anything of a similar nature." Golf course design ranges from the indulgent to the stringent and unforgiving, [snip] Part of the USGA's success in managing change - and thus interest - is in the attitude of the club players. Thomas has written, "[G]olfers have an intuitive understanding of a need for rules which will protect the traditions of the game and preserve the challenge it offers. This is the invisible bond between golfers and rules-making bodies. ... It is understood by the administrators of the game, as it is by participants, that a golfer's *needs* and *wants* differ fairly dramatically at times." [snip] For clubs, the rules become deliberately subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". This, for example, really means that it must look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness precisely would have the revenge effect of promoting a search for loopholes. Richard Hills: Blmler [Nigel Guthrie] has often argued the rules of Duplicate Bridge should be radically altered in their nature by draconian simplification (which I have unfairly parodied as the noughts-and-crosses solution). I have considerable sympathy for two of [Nigel's] supporting arguments, [paraphrased by me] here: 1. Grass-roots players and grass-roots Directors have difficulty understanding the overly complex Lawbook. 2. Secretary Birds who do grasp the Lawbook can exploit the loopholes created by the Lawbook's excessive detail. As a case study, compare and contrast the Details Law 16B, Extraneous Information From Partner, consisting of 249 words, with complex instructions on when to summon the Director (which gives an unethical insinuating Secretary Bird plenty of opportunity to upset newbie opponents with unnecessary Director calls) -- with the Principles Law 73C, Player Receives Unauthorized Information From Partner, a mere 51 words, with the subjective principled instruction to "carefully avoid taking any advantage". Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110516/6f7b6d2d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon May 16 08:36:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:36:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Who can appeal this? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01cc0ef8$5ed271b0$1c775510$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran: >There is always the possibility of sanctions >under Law 93C1 against an appeal without merit. Richard Hills: Law 93C1 is irrelevant to an intrinsically unLawful appeal by a contestant lacking any standing under Law 92A "...at _his_ table...". Sven Pran: >I have a big problem accepting that the >Director's judgment decision on interpretation >of law or regulation cannot be appealed by a >contestant directly influenced by such decision. Richard Hills: Them's the rules of the game. In any case, a contestant directly influenced by such decision has the right to informally and politely approach the Director before the expiration of the Law 79C Correction Period. If the Director is convinced that the Director previously made a Director's Error, then the Director is permitted to change the Error via Law 81C3 "...becomes aware in _any_ manner...". And if the Director is not convinced, then an unLawful appeal would be a waste of time, since only an unLawful Appeals Committee would then unLawfully over-rule the Director "on a point of law or regulations" (Law 93B3). Sven Pran: >Note that this is not a question about appealing >the original decision (PP for slow play) Richard Hills: In ABF-land popular Conditions of Contest involve a Swiss qualifying then 1st and 2nd playing off in a knockout final. Many years ago Team A qualified first with a decisive 25 vps (WBF scale) in their last Swiss match, with Team B qualifying second more narrowly. Team B discovered that the last Swiss match of the Team A versus Team C match had been rigged; the two teams had tossed a coin to decide which team would gain the maximum 25 vps. Team B did not unLawfully appeal but rather Lawfully reported the cheating to the Director pursuant to Law 81C3. The Director and the Tournament Organizer expelled Teams A and C from the event pursuant to Law 91. Pursuant to the Conditions of Contest, all opponents of Teams A and C who had scored less than 18 vps were retrospectively assigned 18 vps. So the new finalists were Teams D and E. For Team B virtue had to be its own reward. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110516/c04647a4/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon May 16 09:07:07 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:07:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD0CD1B.408@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110516/23354d1c/attachment.html From l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com Mon May 16 11:51:52 2011 From: l.kalbarczyk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBLYWxiYXJjenlr?=) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:51:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wrong claim or... Message-ID: <4DD0F3B8.5030206@gmail.com> After closer unspecified auction and the initial phase of the game the declarer claims all tricks, without specifying how to play one of the colors like this: A Q 8 3 K 10 7 4 but it is rather impossible position J9xxx before AQ (but J9xx can happen). Under the law, should be unfavorable for him to consider playing - in this case small to the king, which is: A) irrational irrationality B) play, which sometimes is good C) even if it is bad, it sometimes is so inattentive that may happen What do you think? ?K From svenpran at online.no Mon May 16 13:05:36 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:05:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wrong claim or... In-Reply-To: <4DD0F3B8.5030206@gmail.com> References: <4DD0F3B8.5030206@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009b01cc13b9$2f9bf810$8ed3e830$@no> On Behalf Of Lukasz Kalbarczyk > After closer unspecified auction and the initial phase of the game the > declarer claims all tricks, > without specifying how to play one of the colors like this: > > A Q 8 3 > > K 10 7 4 > > but it is rather impossible position J9xxx before AQ (but J9xx can > happen). > > Under the law, should be unfavorable for him to consider playing - in > this case small to the king, which is: > > A) irrational irrationality > B) play, which sometimes is good > C) even if it is bad, it sometimes is so inattentive that may happen > > > What do you think? Until a defender has shown out it may be careless, but definitely not irrational to cash the high honors in a sequence that eventually proves most unsuccessful for the claimer. With J9xxx in West this means first cashing the Ace (or Queen), with J9xxx in East this means first cashing the King. With J9xx in West this means first cashing both Ace and Queen, with J9xx in East this means first cashing the King and then the Ace (or Queen). From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 16 15:23:01 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 15:23:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Wrong claim or... In-Reply-To: <009b01cc13b9$2f9bf810$8ed3e830$@no> References: <4DD0F3B8.5030206@gmail.com> <009b01cc13b9$2f9bf810$8ed3e830$@no> Message-ID: <4DD12535.8090605@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/05/2011 13:05, Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Lukasz Kalbarczyk >> After closer unspecified auction and the initial phase of the game the >> declarer claims all tricks, >> without specifying how to play one of the colors like this: >> >> A Q 8 3 >> >> K 10 7 4 >> >> but it is rather impossible position J9xxx before AQ (but J9xx can >> happen). >> >> Under the law, should be unfavorable for him to consider playing - in >> this case small to the king, which is: >> >> A) irrational irrationality >> B) play, which sometimes is good >> C) even if it is bad, it sometimes is so inattentive that may happen >> >> >> What do you think? > Until a defender has shown out it may be careless, but definitely not irrational to cash the high honors in a sequence that eventually proves most unsuccessful for the claimer. > > With J9xxx in West this means first cashing the Ace (or Queen), with J9xxx in East this means first cashing the King. > > With J9xx in West this means first cashing both Ace and Queen, with J9xx in East this means first cashing the King and then the Ace (or Queen). AG : it is not even "careless", as any of those actions will succeed against some of the possible layouts. From adam at tameware.com Mon May 16 20:08:24 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 20:08:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted Message-ID: http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Orlando2010.html If you want to discuss a particular case please post a new message > with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > one. > No panelist comments are available yet -- for these cases they haven't been written! -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110516/34c9f7f2/attachment.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Mon May 16 21:18:02 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 21:18:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! Message-ID: Board 9 (EW vul, dealer N) N is an international, S his client, EW are very experienced players in a fairly new partnership. K5 A54 J32 QJ987 AQ87432 JT96 KJT3 976 - AQ9875 T5 - - Q82 KT64 AK6432 N E S W P P 1C(1) 1S(2) 2NT 3D P 4S x AP. (1) may be a small doubleton (2) explained as "overcall in clubs" Before the opening lead, W explained his overcall as "spades", adding he never plays such nonsense, whatever their system notes might say. It would, however, have been the correct information over a strong club. EW made 11 tricks. NS feel damaged by the MI. Quite possibly, W has also used UI from the alert and explanation. Par is 6Cx S -1. Your decision? Regards, Petrus From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Mon May 16 21:29:18 2011 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (Raghavan P.S.) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 00:59:18 +0530 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Orlando (Fall 2010) Non-NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Dear Mr adam Wildavsky. Our greetings to you. As pointed out in our BLML mail, in appeal no 5, the board result is given wrong as NS+100. It should be Minus 100 for NS going 2 down in 3 Spades After you inform, we will also correct in our single page PDF of all the 10 appeals. With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038 Mobile = 9940273749 --------------------------------------------------------------* On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Orlando2010.html > > If you want to discuss a particular case please post a new message > >> with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > >> one. > >> > No panelist comments are available yet -- for these cases they haven't been > written! > > -- > Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20110516/17247109/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 17 00:20:23 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 08:20:23 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Petrus Schuster: Board 9 (EW vul, dealer N) N is an international, S his client, EW are very experienced players in a fairly new partnership. ..................K5 ..................A54 ..................J32 ..................QJ987 AQ87432.........................JT96 KJT3............................976 ---.............................AQ9875 T5..............................--- ..................--- ..................Q82 ..................KT64 ..................AK6432 WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......Pass......1C(1) 1S(2).....2NT.......3D........Pass 4S........X.........Pass......Pass Pass (1) may be a small doubleton (2) explained as "overcall in clubs" Before the opening lead, W explained his overcall as "spades", adding he never plays such nonsense, whatever their system notes might say. It would, however, have been the correct information over a strong club. EW made 11 tricks. NS feel damaged by the MI. Quite possibly, W has also used UI from the alert and explanation. Par is 6Cx S -1. Your decision? Richard Hills: I refuse to "have a go!". Rather, I will instead award an adjustment pursuant to Law 12C1(d): "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110516/ed0d6b27/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue May 17 01:36:33 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 19:36:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <128D3705602942F3AE733AE05CDA0A7D@erdos> N-S were misinformed. Had North been properly informed, his normal action would be to make a limit raise in clubs, which I will assume is 2S. East would have no reason to ask about 2S (if he asked, he would learn about his misexplanation), so his own normal bid would be 3D. South will not double 3D, as he knows that the opponents have lots of spades and someone will run; I think it is at least "likely" that he will bid 5C, which is what he thinks he can make, as opposed to 3NT, which goes down one on a spade lead, or 4C, which North will probably pass. E-W, because of their misunderstanding, cannot get to 5S; 4S by West if South bids only 4C is suggested by the UI over the LA of passing. And 5C looks like it will always make five, so I rule -400 to E-W, +400 to N-S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Petrus Schuster OSB" To: Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 3:18 PM Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! > Board 9 (EW vul, dealer N) > N is an international, S his client, EW are very experienced players in a > fairly new partnership. > > K5 > A54 > J32 > QJ987 > > AQ87432 JT96 > KJT3 976 > - AQ9875 > T5 - > > - > Q82 > KT64 > AK6432 > > > N E S W > > P P 1C(1) 1S(2) > 2NT 3D P 4S > x AP. > > (1) may be a small doubleton > (2) explained as "overcall in clubs" > > Before the opening lead, W explained his overcall as "spades", adding he > never plays such nonsense, whatever their system notes might say. It > would, however, have been the correct information over a strong club. > > EW made 11 tricks. NS feel damaged by the MI. > Quite possibly, W has also used UI from the alert and explanation. > Par is 6Cx S -1. > > Your decision? > > Regards, > Petrus > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 17 03:21:13 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:21:13 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <128D3705602942F3AE733AE05CDA0A7D@erdos> Message-ID: David Grabiner: [snip] >And 5C [by South] looks like it will always make five, >so I rule -400 to E-W, +400 to N-S. >> K5 >> A54 >> J32 >> QJ987 >> >>AQ87432 JT96 >>KJT3 976 >>- AQ9875 >>T5 - >> >> - >> Q82 >> KT64 >> AK6432 Richard Hills: Opening lead of a trump by West beats 5C according to my (possibly flawed) analysis. Declarer draws two trumps ending in dummy, then leads the diamond deuce or trey. East inserts the diamond seven, eight or nine and declarer's ten wins. Declarer returns to dummy with a trump and plays another diamond, which East wins with the ace. East switches to the killing NINE of hearts. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110517/a8167098/attachment.html From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Tue May 17 06:33:50 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 05:33:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A256D7BB7A54180AAE2C945F0AE36A3@G3> [Richard Hills] Blmler [Nigel Guthrie] has often argued the rules of Duplicate Bridge should be radically altered in their nature by draconian simplification (which I have unfairly parodied as the noughts-and-crosses solution). I have considerable sympathy for two of [Nigel's] supporting arguments, [paraphrased by me] here: 1. Grass-roots players and grass-roots Directors have difficulty understanding the overly complex Lawbook. 2. Secretary Birds who do grasp the Lawbook can exploit the loopholes created by the Lawbook's excessive detail. As a case study, compare and contrast the Details Law 16B, Extraneous Information From Partner, consisting of 249 words, with complex instructions on when to summon the Director (which gives an unethical insinuating Secretary Bird plenty of opportunity to upset newbie opponents with unnecessary Director calls) -- with the Principles Law 73C, Player Receives Unauthorized Information From Partner, a mere 51 words, with the subjective principled instruction to "carefully avoid taking any advantage". [Nigel] The laws are so sophisticated that few directors and fewer players understand them. Even top directors don?t always seem to be aware of corrrections in obscure minutes. For many years or so, we?ve witnessed interminable battles over the meaning of laws by dozens of grass-roots lawmen (e.g. David Stevenson, David Burn, Sven Pran, Kojak, Grattan Endicott). Few officials understand the laws. (The ACBL club directors web-site said players are usually well-advised to make the bid they would have made anyway, after partner hesitates). I think many fudges are deliberate ? where competing factions could not agree they seem to leave interpretation ambiguous. Much of the law-book is plain daft. For example - Allowing players to ask ?having none? partner. No wonder players are switching from count to attitude signals. - Offering players options over insufficient and illegal calls, so that they can bring different understandings into play depending on their option-choice. - ?Equity? in the sense of restoring the status quo will not deter players from careless infraction of half-understood laws, especially when the infraction may work in their favour. - Denying redress to players if they make a bad mistake after an opponent?s infraction -- so they are even less likely to call the director ? increases the long-term profit of law-breaking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110517/17c25eea/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 17 07:47:03 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:47:03 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A256D7BB7A54180AAE2C945F0AE36A3@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >The laws are so sophisticated that few directors and >fewer players understand them. [snip] Richard Hills: What is worrying is that few EBU Appeals Committees (whose members are supposed to be well-trained and competent) understand the new protections to non-offending sides inserted when the 1997 Law 12 was replaced by the 2007 Law 12. As a semi-official commentator I am working my way through the raw data of the 2009 EBU Appeals and I am disturbed by the significant number of Appeals Committee rulings which are both unLawful and, more importantly, unfair to the non-offending side. Attached is my comment on what was, in my opinion, an egregiously bad 2009 EBU Appeals Committee's ruling over- turning a super 2009 EBU Director's ruling. Best wishes Richard Hills The Appeals Committee's judgement was, in my opinion, distorted by seeing all four hands. The Director correctly polled two peers of East showing those peers only East's hand and restricting those peers to only authorised information, and both peers without unauthorised assistance were willing to stop in 2Sx. Given that passing 2Sx was a logical alternative the Appeals Committee's ruling was also, in my opinion, illegal. A factor in their ruling was that North-South erred after the East-West infractions by failing to double 3D and instead electing to call 3NT. But according to Law 12C1(b) the non-offending side should only have their rectification reduced for "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". While it is arguable whether or not bidding 3NT is related to the two East-West infractions of misinformation and use- of-unauthorised-information, it is inarguable that the North-South error was definitely not "serious". The guideline on "serious error" given by the WBF Laws Committee (quoted in the EBU White Book, clause 12.17) is: "The standard for judging a 'serious error' must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant." To put a cherry on top of the illegal Appeal Committee ruling, even if ? for the sake of argument ? North-South were deemed to have committed a serious error, Law 12C1(b) requires a split score of North-South getting the table score of 3NT -300 BUT East-West getting an adjusted score of 2Sx -800. The new 2007 Lawbook (unlike the old 1997 Lawbook) no longer permits an offending side to benefit from their infraction merely because of a subsequent error by the non- offending side. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110517/7c89db78/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 17 09:18:15 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:18:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD22137.2080501@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/05/2011 21:18, Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit : > Board 9 (EW vul, dealer N) > N is an international, S his client, EW are very experienced players in a > fairly new partnership. > > K5 > A54 > J32 > QJ987 > > AQ87432 JT96 > KJT3 976 > - AQ9875 > T5 - > > - > Q82 > KT64 > AK6432 > > > N E S W > > P P 1C(1) 1S(2) > 2NT 3D P 4S > x AP. > > (1) may be a small doubleton > (2) explained as "overcall in clubs" > > Before the opening lead, W explained his overcall as "spades", adding he > never plays such nonsense, whatever their system notes might say. It > would, however, have been the correct information over a strong club. > > EW made 11 tricks. NS feel damaged by the MI. > Quite possibly, W has also used UI from the alert and explanation. AG : I would answer to the negative. 4S is a perfectly normal bid over 3D, and I don't think 3S or 3H would be considered LAs. > Par is 6Cx S -1. > > Your decision? > AG : I adjust to 5C made. Given the right information, South could well have bid 5C, West wouldn't have bid more spades, and East wouldn't have wanted to play in a 44 at the 5-level. However, East wouldn't have doubled, being too happy to see them play in West's main suit while 5H seems playable. Yes, it's again the old trick of giving the NOS combined advantages : if NS had been informed, not by their opponents, but by the CC [or S by W behind screens], they would probably have taken the right decision of bidding 5C *and* EW would have acted on the basis of their misunderstanding. So NS have full rights to the corresponding score. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 17 09:22:11 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:22:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD22223.3000607@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/05/2011 3:21, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > David Grabiner: > > [snip] > > >And 5C [by South] looks like it will always make five, > >so I rule -400 to E-W, +400 to N-S. > > >> K5 > >> A54 > >> J32 > >> QJ987 > >> > >>AQ87432 JT96 > >>KJT3 976 > >>- AQ9875 > >>T5 - > >> > >> - > >> Q82 > >> KT64 > >> AK6432 > > Richard Hills: > > Opening lead of a trump by West beats 5C according to > my (possibly flawed) analysis. > AG : indeed, but at many tables 11 tricks were made, so we have to give the NOS the benefit of this ... unless there are obvious reasons why the number of tricks will be different in 5C, which isn't the case. The very possible spade lead gives the contract. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110517/ddbfa9dd/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 17 09:37:24 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:37:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4A256D7BB7A54180AAE2C945F0AE36A3@G3> References: <4A256D7BB7A54180AAE2C945F0AE36A3@G3> Message-ID: <4DD225B4.6080509@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/05/2011 6:33, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Richard Hills] > Blmler [Nigel Guthrie] has often argued the rules of > Duplicate Bridge should be radically altered in their > nature by draconian simplification (which I have unfairly > parodied as the noughts-and-crosses solution). I have > considerable sympathy for two of [Nigel's] supporting > arguments, [paraphrased by me] here: > > 1. Grass-roots players and grass-roots Directors have > difficulty understanding the overly complex Lawbook. > > 2. Secretary Birds who do grasp the Lawbook can exploit > the loopholes created by the Lawbook's excessive detail. AG : perhaps the error is in characterizing consequences of the laws as loopholes. And if there are any, then the laws aren't too complex, they are too loose. IMOBO, Secratary Birds are the guys who try to sway grass-roots directors into making decisions that don't follow the law, which is a wader of another colour. (or is it a bird of prey ?). As an ASL fan and mahjong player, I'm not disheartened by complex sets of rules ; but they should be used only when non-grass-root-players and -directors are involved. Yes, that means two different sets of rules. So what ? [to the laymen, ASL is a tatical wargame which claims to have foreseen every possible occurrence, from paratroops landing in a bamboo field, to a shell going through a tank's cooling grid, to passenger soldiers being forced to bail out when the tank turns its turret (got the image ?) etc This has led to several juicy parodies.] Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110517/8b96c551/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue May 17 09:43:41 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:43:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD2272D.8060601@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/05/2011 7:47, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >The laws are so sophisticated that few directors and > >fewer players understand them. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > What is worrying is that few EBU Appeals Committees (whose > members are supposed to be well-trained and competent) > understand the new protections to non-offending sides > inserted when the 1997 Law 12 was replaced by the 2007 Law > 12. As a semi-official commentator I am working my way > through the raw data of the 2009 EBU Appeals and I am > disturbed by the significant number of Appeals Committee > rulings which are both unLawful and, more importantly, > unfair to the non-offending side. > > Attached is my comment on what was, in my opinion, an > egregiously bad 2009 EBU Appeals Committee's ruling over- > turning a super 2009 EBU Director's ruling. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills > > The Appeals Committee's judgement was, in my opinion, > distorted by seeing all four hands. The Director correctly > polled two peers of East showing those peers only East's > hand and restricting those peers to only authorised > information, and both peers without unauthorised > assistance were willing to stop in 2Sx. > > Given that passing 2Sx was a logical alternative the > Appeals Committee's ruling was also, in my opinion, illegal. > AG : so you mean that the AC's wrong decision wasn't caused by the complexity of the laws, but by a flawed decision procedure. In that case, let's put the blame where it belongs. Simpler rules wouldn't have affected the AC's propension for being influenced - quite the contrary. > A factor in their ruling was that North-South erred after > the East-West infractions by failing to double 3D and > instead electing to call 3NT. But according to Law 12C1(b) > the non-offending side should only have their rectification > reduced for "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". > AG : now, if that's their main argument, then neither TFLB nor the wrong procedure is at fault. It becomes a matter of interpreting the error's extent, in which ACs should have he last word. > > To put a cherry on top of the illegal Appeal Committee > ruling, even if ? for the sake of argument ? North-South > were deemed to have committed a serious error, Law 12C1(b) > requires a split score of North-South getting the table > score of 3NT -300 BUT East-West getting an adjusted score of > 2Sx -800. > AG : granted. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110517/b4d733f9/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue May 17 19:26:02 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 13:26:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DD2272D.8060601@ulb.ac.be> References: <4DD2272D.8060601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 May 2011 03:43:41 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 17/05/2011 7:47, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> Nigel Guthrie: >> >> >The laws are so sophisticated that few directors and >> >fewer players understand them. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> What is worrying is that few EBU Appeals Committees (whose >> members are supposed to be well-trained and competent) >> understand the new protections to non-offending sides >> inserted when the 1997 Law 12 was replaced by the 2007 Law >> 12. As a semi-official commentator I am working my way >> through the raw data of the 2009 EBU Appeals and I am >> disturbed by the significant number of Appeals Committee >> rulings which are both unLawful and, more importantly, >> unfair to the non-offending side. >> >> Attached is my comment on what was, in my opinion, an >> egregiously bad 2009 EBU Appeals Committee's ruling over- >> turning a super 2009 EBU Director's ruling. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills >> >> The Appeals Committee's judgement was, in my opinion, >> distorted by seeing all four hands. The Director correctly >> polled two peers of East showing those peers only East's >> hand and restricting those peers to only authorised >> information, and both peers without unauthorised >> assistance were willing to stop in 2Sx. >> >> Given that passing 2Sx was a logical alternative the >> Appeals Committee's ruling was also, in my opinion, illegal. >> > AG : so you mean that the AC's wrong decision wasn't caused by the > complexity of the laws, but by a flawed decision procedure. > In that case, let's put the blame where it belongs. Simpler rules > wouldn't have affected the AC's propension for being influenced - quite > the contrary. > > I share Richard's concern and worry that there wasn't a lot of publicity for this change. "Logical alternative" became a technical term, defined by the results of a poll. IMO, people who have seen both hands, or know the result, cannot make a useful opinion. Also, can the results of a poll be appealed? As blmlers have noted, one could appeal that there was no poll, or that a peer group wasn't sampled, or that directors misapplied the results of the poll. But to me, if I ask four people and two would make a bid, that's a closed case for the bid being a logical alternative, and there is no director judgment to appeal. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Tue May 17 22:09:33 2011 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 22:09:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] 12C1c adjustment - have a go! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Am 17.05.2011, 00:20 Uhr, schrieb : > Petrus Schuster: > > Board 9 (EW vul, dealer N) > N is an international, S his client, EW are very > experienced players in a fairly new partnership. > > ..................K5 > ..................A54 > ..................J32 > ..................QJ987 > AQ87432.........................JT96 > KJT3............................976 > ---.............................AQ9875 > T5..............................--- > ..................--- > ..................Q82 > ..................KT64 > ..................AK6432 > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......Pass......Pass......1C(1) > 1S(2).....2NT.......3D........Pass > 4S........X.........Pass......Pass > Pass > > (1) may be a small doubleton > (2) explained as "overcall in clubs" > > Before the opening lead, W explained his overcall as > "spades", adding he never plays such nonsense, > whatever their system notes might say. It would, > however, have been the correct information over a > strong club. > > EW made 11 tricks. NS feel damaged by the MI. > Quite possibly, W has also used UI from the alert > and explanation. > Par is 6Cx S -1. > > Your decision? > > Richard Hills: > > I refuse to "have a go!". Rather, I will instead > award an adjustment pursuant to Law 12C1(d): > > "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, > the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." > That's what I did after some consideration - but it still has this lazy feeling ... Regards, Petrus From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 18 03:52:12 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:52:12 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DD225B4.6080509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >>AG : perhaps the error is in characterizing consequences of >>the laws as loopholes. And if there are any, then the laws >>aren't too complex, they are too loose. Richard Hills: >"Thou shalt not murder" is a Principles Law which is not too >loose. "Thou shalt neither use a knife nor use a gun to >terminate life" is a complex Details Law which has several >loopholes (for example poison or Burking). Alain Gottcheiner, the example of Advanced Squad Leader: [snip] >>As an ASL fan and mahjong player, I'm not disheartened by >>complex sets of rules ; but they should be used only when >>non-grass-root-players and -directors are involved. Yes, >>that means two different sets of rules. So what ? >> >>[to the laymen, ASL is a tactical wargame which claims to >>have foreseen every possible occurrence, from paratroops >>landing in a bamboo field, to a shell going through a >>tank's cooling grid, to passenger soldiers being forced to >>bail out when the tank turns its turret (got the image ?) >>etc This has led to several juicy parodies.] Drake Coker, the example of Dominant Species: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/586094/ change-one-rule-for-faster-play I really like Dominant Species, but the play time is a little long for my chat-prone play group. I've been looking for a few ways to trim the game. I thought I would start at the beginning. Quoting the rules... (page 4): Quote: The Board Place the board - face up! - in the center of the table At first I tried a variant where we placed the board on the side of the table instead of the center. This had unsatisfactory results: the play time was not reduced and some of the players complained that the board was hard to reach. Next I tried placing the board face down. Aha! This was a huge success. At first we were a bit confused about how to play. Eventually we realized that most of the remaining rules had little practical effect in this variant which reduced the complexity enormously. Richard Hills: >And abolishing Laws 68 to 71 would reduce the complexity of >the Lawbook enormously. The consequential absence of any >claims would desirably vastly increase the length of bridge >sessions, thus shrinking the time wasted cuddling one's cat. Drake Coker: We were unsure about scoring at first. Someone suggested that we try Through the Ages style scoring ("oops, I bumped the board, I think my score was here?"). But then we realized that the score track was missing and so this idea didn't pan out. Fortunately, Chad is very thorough in his rules and the situation is aleady covered. Quote: Once final scoring is complete, the player in control of the animal with the highest VP total in the game wins. In case of a tie for highest, the tied animal closest to the top of the food chain wins the game for its controller. Since the food chain is shown in the rules (page 3 and again on page 5), we did not need the board for this! Success! In summary then: 1. Select starting animals as stated in the rules. 2. Place the board - face down! - in the center of the table. 3. You can setup the remaining components if you wish, but they work just as well left in the box. 4. Chit-chat about things until you've decided that the game is over. Setting an end-time is helpful. We like about 15 minutes. 5. The person with the animal highest on the food chain wins! Graham Smallwood: Don't you find taking the board out of the box takes an inordinate amount of time? I was looking for a gateway game to teach my cat, and this game is just awful because the board is at the bottom of the box. By the time I take all of the pieces out and set them on the table so I can reach the box, he has already wandered away. Drake Coker: You're missing a key step. You need to put the box lid upside down on the table first so your cat can sit in it. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110518/3c4bc201/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 18 09:48:33 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:48:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4DD2272D.8060601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4DD379D1.3040700@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > Also, can the results of a poll be appealed? As blmlers have noted, one > could appeal that there was no poll, or that a peer group wasn't sampled, > or that directors misapplied the results of the poll. But to me, if I ask > four people and two would make a bid, that's a closed case for the bid > being a logical alternative, and there is no director judgment to appeal. I don't see this as a valid criticism. A) why should a "technical" decision be appealable. Do we allow appeals of revoke penalties? Yes we do, and we will often keep the deposit. B) of course even such a "technical" decision can be appealed. Sometimes, the situation which the director will give to the polled players, however well done this is, is not the exact situation the player was in. For instance, the player is allowed to know his own system, and he will probably know it better than whatever is told the peers. Or sometimes, the director simply misconducts the poll. But I agree with Robert that when the poll is well conducted, there are no grounds for appeal and the ruling should be a straightforard one. And that is a good thing. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu May 19 01:43:00 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 19:43:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4DD2272D.8060601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > Also, can the results of a poll be appealed? As blmlers have noted, one > could appeal that there was no poll, or that a peer group wasn't sampled, > or that directors misapplied the results of the poll. But to me, if I ask > four people and two would make a bid, that's a closed case for the bid > being a logical alternative, and there is no director judgment to appeal. A poll is an important piece of evidence. The fact that two of four players in the poll would make a bid is an agreed fact, and should not be appealed, just as the auction which occurred at the table is an agreed fact. However, the fact that the poll implies that the bid was a logical alternative and the table action should be disallowed depends on interpretation. Were the polled players given the same facts and systemic agreements, or would the two players in the poll who would have bid differently at this turn also have bid differently before it? Did the UI demonstrably suggest the action that was chosen? Did the player at the table have a (documented) agreement which changed the LAs? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu May 19 12:16:42 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:16:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: On Thu, 19 May 2011 06:16:42 -0400, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott > Skype: grattan.endicott > > *************************************** > > "All progress is based upon a universal innate > > desire on the part of every organism to live > > beyond its income." [Samuel Butler] > > ********************************************** > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] > > On Behalf Of David Grabiner > > Sent: 19 May 2011 00:43 > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > A poll is an important piece of evidence. The fact that two > > of four players in the poll would make a bid is an agreed fact, > > and should not be appealed, just as the auction which occurred > > at the table is an agreed fact. > > > However, the fact that the poll implies that the bid was a > > logical alternative and the table action should be disallowed > > depends on interpretation. Were the polled players given the > > same facts and systemic agreements, or would the two players > > in the poll who would have bid differently at this turn also > > have bid differently before it? Did the UI demonstrably suggest > > the action that was chosen? Did the player at the table have a > > (documented) agreement which changed the LAs? > > ............................................................ > > +=+ David Grabiner is on the right track here. Facts may not > > be changed, although purported facts may be found on scrutiny > > not to be true or to be unreliable. > > It is for the Director, and subsequently the appeals > > committee, to determine judgemental matters and interpretations. > > Polling is a practice encouraged or required whenever practicable > > by regulating authorities to assist in determining particularly > > application of Law 16B1. Rather than emphasizing the differences between the 1997 laws and the 2007 laws, you seem to almost pre-2007 here. Prior to 2007, "logical alternative" presumably got a dictionary definition, and the poll was a way of estimating or judging it. But the 2007 laws make the poll the definition. In other words, if my partner hesitates, that gives me information suggesting a call, and I take the call, the question becomes whether a certain percentage of my peers, given the same system and information (etc.), would mostly make that call. A poll answers this question directly. Anything else is just predicting the results of a poll. I can understand anything else being appealable. In my judgment, the opinion of anyone who knows the result or the hands -- director, committee, player, whoever -- is mostly not worthwhile. Put another way, the director does a poll, he finds out that 40% of my peers would take a different call. He rules against me, and there is no judgement in that. So what could I appeal? Grabiner and others are pointing out ways the poll could have been done wrong, but that would seem to be the only basis for appeal. Polling is not a requirement of law; it > > is legitimate and indeed a matter of duty when there is no poll, > > or when such poll as there has been is considered flawed, for the > > Director or the appeals committee to judge the application of Law > > 16B1. I strongly disagree with this. (Except for very obvious cases, which are not what we are talking about.) If there was no poll and the issue is in doubt, do the poll. If the poll was flawed, do another. Do not have committee people deciding whether or not a bid was logical (presumably using the out-dated dictionary definition). > Directors are strongly advised to consult among themselves > > also before issuing any judgemental ruling. Always good advice, but for L16 we are back to getting a blind opinion from anyone you ask. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri May 20 02:09:29 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 20:09:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] interesting hand? Message-ID: E S W N P P P 1C P 1H x 1NT HP P ? The hesitation pass by East presumably suggests that West bid, so you might question any bid West makes at this point (other than pass). However, East has only 7 HCP. He knows partner has less than an opening hand. So he can work out that coming into the auction at this point is not a good idea. EW are vulnerable, NS are not, and this is matchpoints. So one could argue that East could have known that a hesitation was to his benefit and question any pass by West. It's a little troubling that West's call is questionable either way. And also a little troubling that East could not have known that a hesitation was to his presumed benefit until he did the calculations, which is to say, hesitated. This law probably shouldnt apply unless East could have known that the hesitation was to his side's benefit before hesitating. East had Q10xx KJxx xx xxx West thinks a while, then passes, to East's pleasure. Now North explains that his no trump rebid was strong (15-17), instead of weak. Weak is standard here and strong was supposed to be alerted. The director is called (rather loudly given that he was sitting East). West is offered the chance to change her bid, and she does, to 2D. North now questions the legality of this. His argument is that finding out his no trump is strong gives her *less* reason to bid. I think I am just supposed to judge if she was reasonably likely to change her bid with the no information. I would say no, except she did. In some sense, the ultimate proof. So I rule she would have changed her bid. East retreats to 2S, South happily doubles, and just to make the hand interesting, it makes. West had AJ9x xxx KQJ10 xx The spade finesse is off but the AQ of hearts is onside doubleton. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri May 20 09:18:33 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:18:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD615C9.6030907@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > Put another way, the director does a poll, he finds out that 40% of my > peers would take a different call. He rules against me, and there is no > judgement in that. So what could I appeal? Grabiner and others are > pointing out ways the poll could have been done wrong, but that would seem > to be the only basis for appeal. > > Indeed, and what is wrong with that? If the poll is well conducted, then it gives you what the definition of LA defines as a LA. And L16 is clear - so why should you need to appeal it. The revoke law states that you must follow suit. When you have followed a spade to a heart trick, do you intend to appeal this on the ground that the definition of hearts and spades are unclear? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 21 00:31:09 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 18:31:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > wrote: > >> 47e1 > > "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further > rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that > it > was his turn to lead or play." Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the lead out of turn. They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as dummy following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat May 21 01:39:15 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 09:39:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <201105202339.p4KNdjLT021347@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 08:31 AM 21/05/2011, you wrote: >On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick >wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > > wrote: > > > >> 47e1 > > > > "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further > > rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that > > it > > was his turn to lead or play." > >Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by >east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the >lead out of turn. > >They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as dummy >following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can >still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. Perhaps you should direct the consensus to RTFLB, esp L54 in my editition Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat May 21 01:49:26 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 19:49:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <201105202339.p4KNdjLT021347@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105202339.p4KNdjLT021347@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 May 2011 19:39:15 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 08:31 AM 21/05/2011, you wrote: >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick >> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> > wrote: >> > >> >> 47e1 >> > >> > "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> further >> > rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> that >> > it >> > was his turn to lead or play." >> >> Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by >> east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the >> lead out of turn. >> >> They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as >> dummy >> following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can >> still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. > > Perhaps you should direct the consensus to RTFLB, esp L54 > in my editition Right, that is straight from the laws. But the laws don't have a deadline on retracting the lead. So you can't exactly follow the RTFLB all the way, but nothing new there. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sat May 21 04:09:38 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 10:09:38 +0800 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? > On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick > wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> wrote: >> >>> 47e1 >> >> "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that >> it >> was his turn to lead or play." > > Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by > east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the > lead out of turn. > > They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as dummy > following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can > still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. Law 47 E1, complete with the second sentence, says that they are correct. "E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation 1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances." cheers bill > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat May 21 14:29:16 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 22:29:16 +1000 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 12:09 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Frick" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:31 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >information? > > > > On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > >> wrote: > >> > >>> 47e1 > >> > >> "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further > >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that > >> it > >> was his turn to lead or play." > > > > Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by > > east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the > > lead out of turn. > > > > They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as dummy > > following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can > > still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. > >Law 47 E1, complete with the second sentence, says that they are correct. > >"E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it >was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO >in these circumstances." > >cheers >bill Well all I have to say is L47E2(a) Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sat May 21 15:46:30 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 21:46:30 +0800 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? > At 12:09 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Robert Frick" >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:31 AM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >>information? >> >> >> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 47e1 >> >> >> >> "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> >> further >> >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> >> that >> >> it >> >> was his turn to lead or play." >> > >> > Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by >> > east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the >> > lead out of turn. >> > >> > They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as >> > dummy >> > following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can >> > still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. >> >>Law 47 E1, complete with the second sentence, says that they are correct. >> >>"E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >>1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >>rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it >>was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his >>LHO >>in these circumstances." >> >>cheers >>bill > > Well all I have to say is L47E2(a) > I would like confirmation on the intent of the lawmakers before I agreed that a probably illegal exposure of cards by LHO in this case made her dummy. "2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card." Cheers bill > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From david.j.barton at lineone.net Sat May 21 21:24:46 2011 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 20:24:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com><201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> Message-ID: <8503DB06973E4A3085AE0BE5036618D3@Lounge> -----Original Message----- From: Bill & Helen Kemp Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 2:46 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn,did opps get wrong information? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? > At 12:09 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Robert Frick" >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:31 AM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >>information? >> >> >> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 47e1 >> >> >> >> "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> >> further >> >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> >> that >> >> it >> >> was his turn to lead or play." >> > >> > Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by >> > east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the >> > lead out of turn. >> > >> > They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as >> > dummy >> > following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can >> > still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. >> >>Law 47 E1, complete with the second sentence, says that they are correct. >> >>"E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >>1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further >>rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it >>was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his >>LHO >>in these circumstances." >> >>cheers >>bill > > Well all I have to say is L47E2(a) > I would like confirmation on the intent of the lawmakers before I agreed that a probably illegal exposure of cards by LHO in this case made her dummy. "2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card." Cheers bill Well it appears to me that *DECLARER* not dummy has faced cards and that no card has been "subsequently played". So the conditions for the application of L47E2(a) have not been met. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From svenpran at online.no Sat May 21 23:30:24 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 23:30:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <8503DB06973E4A3085AE0BE5036618D3@Lounge> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com><201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <8503DB06973E4A3085AE0BE5036618D3@Lounge> Message-ID: <000001cc17fe$4c4e1760$e4ea4620$@no> On Behalf Of David ............. > Well it appears to me that *DECLARER* not dummy has faced cards and > that no > card > has been "subsequently played". > > So the conditions for the application of L47E2(a) have not been met. Law 47E2 applies when there has been misinformation in the disclosure of agreements. OP described a case with misinformation as to which defender had the opening lead, not misinformation about agreements. So the applicable law here is L47E1, not 47E2. (Actually, the misinformation in OP was about who was declarer, but the effect was a consequential misinformation about who had the opening lead) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun May 22 01:00:20 2011 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 09:00:20 +1000 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> Message-ID: <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 11:46 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tony Musgrove" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:29 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >information? > > > > At 12:09 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: > > > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Robert Frick" > >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >>Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:31 AM > >>Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong > >>information? > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> 47e1 > >> >> > >> >> "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without > >> >> further > >> >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent > >> >> that > >> >> it > >> >> was his turn to lead or play." > >> > > >> > Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades by > >> > east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract the > >> > lead out of turn. > >> > > >> > They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as > >> > dummy > >> > following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead can > >> > still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. > >> > >>Law 47 E1, complete with the second sentence, says that they are correct. > >> > >>"E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation > >>1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further > >>rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it > >>was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his > >>LHO > >>in these circumstances." > >> > >>cheers > >>bill > > > > Well all I have to say is L47E2(a) > > >I would like confirmation on the intent of the lawmakers before I agreed >that a probably illegal exposure of cards by LHO in this case made her >dummy. > >"2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken >explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected >explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was >subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted >after dummy has faced any card." > >Cheers > >bill > > > Cheers, > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ OK, I'll see your "probably illegal exposure", and raise you L23 "could have known". Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun May 22 02:36:25 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 20:36:25 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 May 2011 19:00:20 -0400, Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 11:46 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tony Musgrove" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:29 PM >> Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >> information? >> >> >> > At 12:09 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: >> > >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>From: "Robert Frick" >> >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> >>Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:31 AM >> >>Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >> >>information? >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 47e1 >> >> >> >> >> >> "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> >> >> further >> >> >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> >> >> that >> >> >> it >> >> >> was his turn to lead or play." >> >> > >> >> > Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 >> Spades by >> >> > east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may >> retract the >> >> > lead out of turn. >> >> > >> >> > They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as >> >> > dummy >> >> > following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the >> lead can >> >> > still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. >> >> >> >>Law 47 E1, complete with the second sentence, says that they are >> correct. >> >> >> >>"E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >> >>1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> further >> >>rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> that it >> >>was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by >> his >> >>LHO >> >>in these circumstances." >> >> >> >>cheers >> >>bill >> > >> > Well all I have to say is L47E2(a) >> > >> I would like confirmation on the intent of the lawmakers before I agreed >> that a probably illegal exposure of cards by LHO in this case made her >> dummy. >> >> "2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a >> mistaken >> explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected >> explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was >> subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted >> after dummy has faced any card." >> >> Cheers >> >> bill >> >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Tony (Sydney) >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > > OK, I'll see your "probably illegal exposure", and raise you L23 > "could have known". I'll see your "could have known" and raise you L46E1 "may be retracted without further rectification" From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun May 22 15:06:17 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (Bill & Helen Kemp) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 21:06:17 +0800 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com><201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? > At 11:46 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Tony Musgrove" >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:29 PM >>Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >>information? >> >> >> > At 12:09 PM 21/05/2011, you wrote: >> > >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>From: "Robert Frick" >> >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> >>Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:31 AM >> >>Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong >> >>information? >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:15:17 -0400, Robert Frick >> >> > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:21:20 -0400, Gordon Rainsford >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 47e1 >> >> >> >> >> >> "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> >> >> further >> >> >> rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent >> >> >> that >> >> >> it >> >> >> was his turn to lead or play." >> >> > >> >> > Everyone here thinks that if the declaring side agrees to "4 Spades >> >> > by >> >> > east", then if the declarer is actually west, then they may retract >> >> > the >> >> > lead out of turn. >> >> > >> >> > They wanted to ask what happens when declarer puts down his hand as >> >> > dummy >> >> > following a misled lead out of turn. The consensus is that the lead >> >> > can >> >> > still be retracted and they just saw declarer's hand. >> >> >> >>Law 47 E1, complete with the second sentence, says that they are >> >>correct. >> >> >> >>"E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation >> >>1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without >> >>further >> >>rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that >> >>it >> >>was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his >> >>LHO >> >>in these circumstances." >> >> >> >>cheers >> >>bill >> > >> > Well all I have to say is L47E2(a) >> > >>I would like confirmation on the intent of the lawmakers before I agreed >>that a probably illegal exposure of cards by LHO in this case made her >>dummy. >> >>"2. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken >>explanation of an opponent's call or play and before a corrected >>explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was >>subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted >>after dummy has faced any card." >> >>Cheers >> >>bill >> >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Tony (Sydney) >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > > OK, I'll see your "probably illegal exposure", and raise you L23 > "could have known". > This has a bit of a strange feel to it. There is possibly a bit of law 23 in both directions. It would have been nice to have been at the table. I was considering last night whether in practice it would be better to let the lead stand, play the hand out and clean up afterwards. there is a ship load of UI without adding to it. cheers bill > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun May 22 19:19:02 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 18:19:02 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> Grattan Endicott References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:19:02 -0400, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott Skype: grattan.endicott > *************************************** > "A state of mind does come into it, but ability > is the biggest factor." [K. Dalglish] > ********************************************** > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf > Of Robert Frick > Sent: 20 May 2011 00:39 > > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > I strongly disagree with this. (Except for very obvious > cases, which are not what we are talking about.) If there > was no poll and the issue is in doubt, do the poll. If the > poll was flawed, do another. Do not have committee people > deciding whether or not a bid was logical (presumably > using the out-dated dictionary definition). > > Bob > > +=+ The definition of 'logical alternative' in the 2007 > laws merely incorporates in the law book what was guidance > given outside of the law book previously. The interpretation > has not altered. The law book does not call for a poll. True? Suppose I want to know what percentage of people are voting for a candidate over another. I can read about the two candidates, form an opinion that Candidate A is better, and guess that 65% of the people are voting for Candidate A. But that isn't a very good way to answer the question, and in fact Candidate B might be more popular. (I predicted that Reagan would not win the election using this method.) Suppose that 40% of the peers would consider an action and half of those would select it. That means that 60% of the people, working alone with just their own thoughts, would say the action is not a legal alternative. The law calls for an estimate of the results of a poll, and except in really obvious cases, there really isn't any good way to get that estimate except to ask people. > Regulating authorities guide directors concerning the value > and use of polls. A poll is a sample of opinion among peers. > It is not wholly binding on an appeals committee if it is considered to > be a poor sample or if the procedure is deemed > to be in some way flawed. I am not sure what a "poor sample" is. Nothing is perfect, so any poll has flaws. But right, I am agreeing with everyone else that people can protest if there was something wrong with the sample, like them not knowing the system. I just don't want people saying that the results of the poll were wrong. > In the absence of a poll the > director and the appeal committee are responsible for making > the judgement and usually do so without calling for a poll > (often for want of time, sometimes because suitable pollees > are not available). This is entirely proper. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I don't think so. If I didn't have the time, I would consider a split score as more appropriate than ruling against someone without any poll. Director's error? Hmm. once I called the director and he ruled against me without a poll and to this day I feel a little cheated. I am not sure what you mean by "suitable pollees". Sometimes the results differ by ability. I try to be sensitive to that and poll at least a little at ability level. And I admit I have standard answers that I don't do a poll for. Like recovery from missed Jacoby transfers in weaker players. From swillner at nhcc.net Mon May 23 03:05:01 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 21:05:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> Message-ID: <4DD9B2BD.7020604@nhcc.net> On 5/22/2011 3:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > The law calls for an estimate of the results of a poll, Agreed, though there is a trace of subtlety about "seriously consider" and "actually choose." > and except in > really obvious cases, there really isn't any good way to get that estimate > except to ask people. Good players are surprisingly good at guessing what other players, both good and bad, will do. That's not to say they can't make mistakes, but AC judgments about bridge probabilities are quite a lot better than random guesses. A proper poll is generally better, of course. > If I didn't have the time, I would consider a split > score as more appropriate than ruling against someone without any poll. Words fail me. > Hmm. once I called the director and he ruled against me > without a poll and to this day I feel a little cheated. You've led a sheltered life. Or maybe your directors are better than some of the ones I've seen. I've seen easy mechanical rulings botched, even by high-level directors, and I don't think I've yet seen a correct ruling under the new L27. Some ruling mistakes against me when I was a teenager and just starting duplicate were probably what got me interested in bridge Laws in the first place. Despite all that, I would still encourage Directors to try to rule in accordance with TFLB, even knowing they will sometimes make mistakes. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon May 23 17:19:11 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:19:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DD9B2BD.7020604@nhcc.net> References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> <4DD9B2BD.7020604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:05:01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 5/22/2011 3:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> The law calls for an estimate of the results of a poll, > > Agreed, though there is a trace of subtlety about "seriously consider" > and "actually choose." > >> and except in >> really obvious cases, there really isn't any good way to get that >> estimate >> except to ask people. > > Good players are surprisingly good at guessing what other players, both > good and bad, will do. That's not to say they can't make mistakes, but > AC judgments about bridge probabilities are quite a lot better than > random guesses. A proper poll is generally better, of course. > >> If I didn't have the time, I would consider a split >> score as more appropriate than ruling against someone without any poll. > > Words fail me. You deleted the part about director error. It is one thing to be given a hand and an auction and be asked what I would do. For example, 1S 2H 3H P 3S P ? It is completely different to be told that 4S is cold and be given the same hand and the same auction. It would be naive I think for anyone to assume they could make the same decision in both cases (unless it was very obvious). At the least, if your first impression is to pass but you hear that 4S is cold, you are going to reconsider your decision. The psychological literature is overflowing with examples of people being biased by things they aren't aware of. Here, the bias is obvious -- who wants to say they will pass when the contract is cold? So, if I have to make a decision about what people would do, and it isn't obvious, I would never trust my own decision. So then what. The reality is, I had to make a decision last Friday on something that came up the last round. Would I lead a spade against the contract giving that spades sets it 3 and anything else is 6NT making 7. I asked three people. > >> Hmm. once I called the director and he ruled against me >> without a poll and to this day I feel a little cheated. > > You've led a sheltered life. Or maybe your directors are better than > some of the ones I've seen. I've seen easy mechanical rulings botched, > even by high-level directors, and I don't think I've yet seen a correct > ruling under the new L27. Some ruling mistakes against me when I was a > teenager and just starting duplicate were probably what got me > interested in bridge Laws in the first place. > > Despite all that, I would still encourage Directors to try to rule in > accordance with TFLB, even knowing they will sometimes make mistakes. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon May 23 17:47:05 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:47:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> <4DD9B2BD.7020604@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4DDA8179.7080906@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/05/2011 17:19, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > You deleted the part about director error. > > It is one thing to be given a hand and an auction and be asked what I > would do. For example, > > 1S 2H 3H P > 3S P ? > > It is completely different to be told that 4S is cold and be given the > same hand and the same auction. > > It would be naive I think for anyone to assume they could make the same > decision in both cases (unless it was very obvious). At the least, if your > first impression is to pass but you hear that 4S is cold, you are going to > reconsider your decision. > > The psychological literature is overflowing with examples of people being > biased by things they aren't aware of. Here, the bias is obvious -- who > wants to say they will pass when the contract is cold? AG : absolutely right. However, one should be aware that objective, neutral and full data are never available to the polled ones. Whence taking an unbiased decision is a pipe dream. Here is an interesting case, somewhat similar : 1S 3Ca ...3S 4S They play the Bergen complex (with 3C stronger than 3D). However, they have a long history of bidding 3C, then going to 4S over 3S (yes, also behind screens and/or without tempo), to avoid the adverse effect a strong 2NT response could have when they hold a game-going but totally non-slam-going hand like KJxx-QJx-Qx-KJxx. This would be told if opponents asked, but how many polled guys would even consider this possibility and enquire ? They would merely be told that 2NT would have been GF, and would then consider that 3C followed by 4S is "an impossibility". And if you tell them about this tendency, you'll bias their judgment. Is there a way out ? No, there isn't. > So, if I have to make a decision about what people would do, and it isn't > obvious, I would never trust my own decision. So then what. The reality > is, I had to make a decision last Friday on something that came up the > last round. Would I lead a spade against the contract giving that spades > sets it 3 and anything else is 6NT making 7. I asked three people. > AG : perhaps it would be a good idea to tell us the end of the story ;-) Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Mon May 23 17:55:44 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 17:55:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DDA8179.7080906@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> <4DD9B2BD.7020604@nhcc.net> <4DDA8179.7080906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00b001cc1961$dfbefe60$9f3cfb20$@nl> AG : absolutely right. However, one should be aware that objective, neutral and full data are never available to the polled ones. Whence taking an unbiased decision is a pipe dream. Here is an interesting case, somewhat similar : 1S 3Ca ...3S 4S They play the Bergen complex (with 3C stronger than 3D). However, they have a long history of bidding 3C, then going to 4S over 3S (yes, also behind screens and/or without tempo), to avoid the adverse effect a strong 2NT response could have when they hold a game-going but totally non-slam-going hand like KJxx-QJx-Qx-KJxx. If the 3C bidder has a clear GF hand no problem. If he has a borderline hand he is stuck by the combination of his system and his pd's hesitation. You win some, you lose some. Hans From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Tue May 24 21:42:45 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:42:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Le_comit=E9_de_l=27environnement?= Message-ID: <000601cc1a4a$c1ffa340$45fee9c0$@com> Bonjour messieurs, Je n?ai eu qu?un commentaire sur le Comit? de l?environnement d?Adstock et il me vient de Lamothe. M?me si je lui ai envoy? un message personnel lui expliquant que je ne reprenais pas sa proposition de r?diger un r?glement en bonne et due forme, mais que j?allais plut?t faire des suggestion, pour m?nager la susceptibilit? de Turgeon, il me revient avec la m?me id?e. Il dit ?galement avoir consult? Martine Poulin et Ghislain Jacques et voudrait que je leur envoie notre proposition en m?me temps que Turgeon. ? moins d?objection de votre part, je m?en tiendrai donc ? ce que nous avons convenu lors de la rencontre avec Adstock. J?envoie demain ? Turgeon et uniquement ? lui les suggestion que vous avez re?ues. Il lui appartient de faire le suivi avec les ?lus et de r?diger un vrai r?glement selon les modalit?s qui lui conviennent. Laval Du Breuil PS : Raynal, je te reviens avec ton texte pour L?Arrivage -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110524/62e6df78/attachment.html From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Wed May 25 02:43:44 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 20:43:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?q?Le_comit=E9_de_l=27environnement?= In-Reply-To: <000601cc1a4a$c1ffa340$45fee9c0$@com> References: <000601cc1a4a$c1ffa340$45fee9c0$@com> Message-ID: <000901cc1a74$cdbd8560$69389020$@com> Sorry BLML . Bad click . Laval Du breuil De : blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] De la part de laval dubreuil Envoy? : 24 mai 2011 15:43 ? : rtanguay at tlb.sympatico.ca; BLML; raynald.pare at xplornet.com Objet : [BLML] Le comit? de l'environnement Bonjour messieurs, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110525/23e323bc/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed May 25 03:23:43 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:23:43 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DD615C9.6030907@skynet.be> Message-ID: [snip] The revoke law states that you must follow suit. When you have followed a spade to a heart trick, do you intend to appeal this on the ground that the definition of hearts and spades are unclear? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium "Suit ? One of four groups of cards in the pack, each group comprising thirteen cards and having a characteristic symbol: spades (S), hearts (H), diamonds (D), clubs (C)." At the 2001 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup in Paris, the WBF introduced symmetrical playing cards as an anti- cheating device. But for these first primitive packs of symmetrical playing cards (the design has been much improved since) it was easy to mistake the ace of clubs for the ace of spades, and vice versa. Hence on one deal both sides revoked on the same trick. So it would have been legitimate to argue a Tournament Organizer's Error on the grounds that the packs of cards supplied by the TO lacked the Definitions' mandate for fully "characteristic" symbols. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110525/2df24e8c/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 25 08:59:24 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 08:59:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DDCA8CC.8010908@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > [snip] > > The revoke law states that you must follow suit. When > you have followed a spade to a heart trick, do you > intend to appeal this on the ground that the definition > of hearts and spades are unclear? > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > > "Suit ? One of four groups of cards in the pack, each > group comprising thirteen cards and having a > characteristic symbol: spades (S), hearts (H), > diamonds (D), clubs (C)." > > At the 2001 Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup in Paris, the > WBF introduced symmetrical playing cards as an anti- > cheating device. But for these first primitive packs > of symmetrical playing cards (the design has been > much improved since) it was easy to mistake the ace of > clubs for the ace of spades, and vice versa. Hence on > one deal both sides revoked on the same trick. > > So it would have been legitimate to argue a Tournament > Organizer's Error on the grounds that the packs of > cards supplied by the TO lacked the Definitions' > mandate for fully "characteristic" symbols. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills My point exactly. You would be allowed to appeal a TD ruling on revokes. You would have little chance of success, but you would be allowed it. The reason for my strange contribution has been lost in Richard's snipping, since Richard believes it is OK to take someone's writings out of context and contradict them, so I'll remind you of the reason. Someone (don't remember who) complaned about the practice of polling because it transformed an ethical decision into a mechanical one, and such a mechanical decision could not be appealed. My point, and my strange contribution, was to say that even a mechanical decision could be appealed, but why would you want to do so? Is there really some need to be allowed to appeal any decision (with some degree of possible success) - aren't the laws better if the TD just needs to follow some rules and rule accordingly? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed May 25 10:47:22 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:47:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Class of player... Message-ID: ...on BBO last night, Benito G held: 102 / 105 / KJ7 / AQ10543 RHO opened: (1H), 2C, (2H), X (3H), P, (P), 4H (P) , P ???? Went for 1100 and 14 imps ------------------------------------------- The wife has been missing a week now. Police said to prepare for the worst. So I have hidden the best wine again. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed May 25 11:38:22 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:38:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Class of player... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DDCCE0E.9020502@skynet.be> Larry wrote: > ...on BBO last night, Benito G held: > > 102 / 105 / KJ7 / AQ10543 > > RHO opened: > > (1H), 2C, (2H), X > > (3H), P, (P), 4H > > (P) , P ???? > > Went for 1100 and 14 imps > I did not see a double, so -1000 should be the maximum. -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed May 25 12:24:17 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:24:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Class of player... References: <4DDCCE0E.9020502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <258E3DB0D11A44079FBF65A3BFD6A514@changeme1> Indeed, sorry 'twas only 500 (but still 14 imps) > Larry wrote: >> ...on BBO last night, Benito G held: >> >> 102 / 105 / KJ7 / AQ10543 >> >> RHO opened: >> >> (1H), 2C, (2H), X >> >> (3H), P, (P), 4H >> >> (P) , P ???? >> >> Went for 1100 and 14 imps >> > > I did not see a double, so -1000 should be the maximum. > > > -- > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium > _______________________________________________ > 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: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3659 - Release Date: 05/25/11 > From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 25 14:12:45 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:12:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Class of player... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:47:22 +0100 > Subject: [BLML] Class of player... > > ...on BBO last night, Benito G held: > > 102 / 105 / KJ7 / AQ10543 > > RHO opened: > > (1H), 2C, (2H), X > > (3H), P, (P), 4H > > (P) , P ???? > > Went for 1100 and 14 imps I notice that BG has been training partner to take a more active role . >From Ft WOrth 1990 Against me, BG held and dealt at favorable: xx-Qxx-Kxxx-Axxx BG P- 1S- P- 1N 2C- P- P- X 2D- P- P- X PPP Don't know how he did it but he picked off my two best suits :) He declared it admirably and made 3. Three tricks that is. regards roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 25 15:35:41 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:35:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: It is reasonable to worry about this gambit (correct word?): I see that declarer is getting ready to put his hand down as dummy. I ask if it is my lead, declarer says yes (incorrectly), and I lead out of turn. At the least, partner gets to see my lead. If we get lucky, declarer puts down his hand and we get to see his whole hand before we correct the lead. TFLB seems at first to be crystal clear that a player may retract a lead out of turn following misleading information about the lead, even when declarer has put down his hand as dummy. But it is not that simple. TFLB puts no deadline on the right to correct such a lead. I think, following the lawbook blindly, a player has the right to retract the lead after the hand has been played out. So the director has to decided on a deadline. The logical deadline seems to be when partner plays to the opening lead. But, there is ambiguity and hence choice. If neither my partner nor I know what the opening lead is, then in a sense we are just as "offending" as the side that gave the misinformation. So if my partner cannot complain about lead out of turn as soon as I make it, then it is reasonable that our chance to retract the opening lead has expired. I think that is best, but I admit there are other gambits to worry about. Like declarer putting his hand down with lightning speed so that partner does not get a chance to correct the lead. So the right to retraction perhaps should expire after partner has had a reasonable chance to correct the opening lead. But in terms of allowing natural play, it seems best not to allow retraction of an opening lead once declarer has exposed his hand. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 15:56:22 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:56:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details In-Reply-To: References: <4E7FFD5B67844F8A9A072977AD305253@Thain> Message-ID: <40DE9D1A-BECC-4F8A-BFE5-269A7E5A0382@starpower.net> On May 22, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 22 May 2011 13:19:02 -0400, Grattan Endicott > wrote: > >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On >> Behalf >> Of Robert Frick >> >> I strongly disagree with this. (Except for very obvious >> cases, which are not what we are talking about.) If there >> was no poll and the issue is in doubt, do the poll. If the >> poll was flawed, do another. Do not have committee people >> deciding whether or not a bid was logical (presumably >> using the out-dated dictionary definition). >> >> +=+ The definition of 'logical alternative' in the 2007 >> laws merely incorporates in the law book what was guidance >> given outside of the law book previously. The interpretation >> has not altered. The law book does not call for a poll. > > True? Suppose I want to know what percentage of people are voting > for a > candidate over another. I can read about the two candidates, form an > opinion that Candidate A is better, and guess that 65% of the > people are > voting for Candidate A. But that isn't a very good way to answer the > question, and in fact Candidate B might be more popular. (I > predicted that > Reagan would not win the election using this method.) > > Suppose that 40% of the peers would consider an action and half of > those > would select it. That means that 60% of the people, working alone with > just their own thoughts, would say the action is not a legal > alternative. > > The law calls for an estimate of the results of a poll, and except in > really obvious cases, there really isn't any good way to get that > estimate > except to ask people. > >> Regulating authorities guide directors concerning the value >> and use of polls. A poll is a sample of opinion among peers. >> It is not wholly binding on an appeals committee if it is >> considered to >> be a poor sample or if the procedure is deemed >> to be in some way flawed. > > I am not sure what a "poor sample" is. > > Nothing is perfect, so any poll has flaws. But right, I am agreeing > with > everyone else that people can protest if there was something wrong > with > the sample, like them not knowing the system. I just don't want people > saying that the results of the poll were wrong. > >> In the absence of a poll the >> director and the appeal committee are responsible for making >> the judgement and usually do so without calling for a poll >> (often for want of time, sometimes because suitable pollees >> are not available). This is entirely proper. > > I don't think so. If I didn't have the time, I would consider a split > score as more appropriate than ruling against someone without any > poll. > Director's error? Hmm. once I called the director and he ruled > against me > without a poll and to this day I feel a little cheated. > > I am not sure what you mean by "suitable pollees". Sometimes the > results > differ by ability. I try to be sensitive to that and poll at least a > little at ability level. > > And I admit I have standard answers that I don't do a poll for. Like > recovery from missed Jacoby transfers in weaker players. The word "poll" does not appear anywhere in TFLB. Certainly, polling has its uses in L16 cases, and regulating authorities may well encourage it, or even specify that it be done whenever practical. But it seems clear to me that, as Grattan says, absent contrary guidance by the RA, that is the AC's call; TFLB does not specify how they go about applying the definition of an LA, and polling is merely one means to the required end. Civil courts judging real-world cases are routinely called upon to apply a "reasonable person" test to decide negligence, determining what a "reasonable person" would do in a given set of circumstances. One could argue that the only way to make such a determination with confidence is to take a poll of "reasonable people" who are uninvolved in the case. That this is never done doesn't delegitimize those decisions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed May 25 20:11:52 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 20:11:52 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > It is reasonable to worry about this gambit (correct word?): I see that > declarer is getting ready to put his hand down as dummy. I ask if it is > my > lead, declarer says yes (incorrectly), and I lead out of turn. At the > least, partner gets to see my lead. If we get lucky, declarer puts down > his hand and we get to see his whole hand before we correct the lead. > > TFLB seems at first to be crystal clear that a player may retract a > lead > out of turn following misleading information about the lead, even when > declarer has put down his hand as dummy. > > But it is not that simple. TFLB puts no deadline on the right to > correct > such a lead. I think, following the lawbook blindly, a player has the > right to retract the lead after the hand has been played out. So the > director has to decided on a deadline. The logical deadline seems to be > when partner plays to the opening lead. But, there is ambiguity and > hence > choice. > > If neither my partner nor I know what the opening lead is, then in a > sense > we are just as "offending" as the side that gave the misinformation. So > if > my partner cannot complain about lead out of turn as soon as I make it, > then it is reasonable that our chance to retract the opening lead has > expired. > > I think that is best, but I admit there are other gambits to worry > about. > Like declarer putting his hand down with lightning speed so that > partner > does not get a chance to correct the lead. So the right to retraction > perhaps should expire after partner has had a reasonable chance to > correct > the opening lead. But in terms of allowing natural play, it seems best > not > to allow retraction of an opening lead once declarer has exposed his > hand. I consider Law 54A: After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer. to settle any question here. ("If declarer begins to spread his hand, .....") From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed May 25 20:55:14 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:55:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:11:52 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> It is reasonable to worry about this gambit (correct word?): I see that >> declarer is getting ready to put his hand down as dummy. I ask if it is >> my >> lead, declarer says yes (incorrectly), and I lead out of turn. At the >> least, partner gets to see my lead. If we get lucky, declarer puts down >> his hand and we get to see his whole hand before we correct the lead. >> >> TFLB seems at first to be crystal clear that a player may retract a >> lead >> out of turn following misleading information about the lead, even when >> declarer has put down his hand as dummy. >> >> But it is not that simple. TFLB puts no deadline on the right to >> correct >> such a lead. I think, following the lawbook blindly, a player has the >> right to retract the lead after the hand has been played out. So the >> director has to decided on a deadline. The logical deadline seems to be >> when partner plays to the opening lead. But, there is ambiguity and >> hence >> choice. >> >> If neither my partner nor I know what the opening lead is, then in a >> sense >> we are just as "offending" as the side that gave the misinformation. So >> if >> my partner cannot complain about lead out of turn as soon as I make it, >> then it is reasonable that our chance to retract the opening lead has >> expired. >> >> I think that is best, but I admit there are other gambits to worry >> about. >> Like declarer putting his hand down with lightning speed so that >> partner >> does not get a chance to correct the lead. So the right to retraction >> perhaps should expire after partner has had a reasonable chance to >> correct >> the opening lead. But in terms of allowing natural play, it seems best >> not >> to allow retraction of an opening lead once declarer has exposed his >> hand. > > I consider Law 54A: > > After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he > becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so > exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes > declarer. > > to settle any question here. ("If declarer begins to spread his hand, > .....") Yes, almost everyone agrees that the lawbook settles the question. Yours would be a really awkward position to maintain. Maybe everything is awkward, but.. 1. You have to claim that L54A has precedence over L46E1 and simultaneously claim that L54B does not. Or, you have to claim that putting down declarer's hand as dummy is not accepting the lead. The problem is, by any definition of "accepting", that is accepting the lead. (Or, to put this another way, to follow your interpretation the lawbook should make clear that putting down declarer's hand as dummy is not accepting the lead. Which would mystify everyone, because we can all see that it is accepting the lead.) You also have that when director is called to the table following a misinformed opening lead out of turn, the director should offer declarer the opportunity to put down his hand as dummy. Do you really want to claim that? Or perhaps I have your point totally wrong. I see now that maybe you are saying that once declarer puts down his hand as dummy, he becomes dummy. But the misinformed lead is still withdrawn and the correct player makes the opening lead. That's an interesting solution! From svenpran at online.no Wed May 25 21:37:50 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 21:37:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> Message-ID: <000701cc1b13$3bfa26c0$b3ee7440$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ........... > Yours would be a really awkward position to maintain. Maybe > everything is awkward, but.. ............. We can have the following scenarios: South is declarer and East has made an opening lead (out of turn): 1: Someone calls attention to the irregularity. Law 54 applies in its entirety. 2: Someone calls attention to the irregularity, but East had received the incorrect information that it was his turn to lead (or that North was declarer, which amounts to the same). Law 47E1 rather than Law 54 applies. According to this law East may retract his lead but he is not required to do so. South may not accept the lead, I understand this to mean that the choice made by East (whether or not to retract his lead) is binding on South and that South then remains declarer. (If South began to face his cards after attention was called to the irregularity he was violating Law 9B2). 3: South begins to face his cards and then someone calls attention to the fact that the opening lead was out of turn. Law 54A applies specifically and unconditionally. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed May 25 22:45:36 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:45:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> Message-ID: <0B207D14-372E-4B87-A6C4-2A3E91981765@starpower.net> On May 25, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:11:52 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> I consider Law 54A: >> >> After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his >> hand; he >> becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so >> exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy >> becomes >> declarer. >> >> to settle any question here. ("If declarer begins to spread his hand, >> .....") > > Yes, almost everyone agrees that the lawbook settles the question. > > Yours would be a really awkward position to maintain. Maybe > everything is > awkward, but.. > > 1. You have to claim that L54A has precedence over L46E1 and > simultaneously claim that L54B does not. It would be better to phrase this as "L47E1 [correcting typo above] has precedence over L54B but not over L54A." Specifically, L47E1's "a lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO" overrides L54B's "declarer may accept the irregular lead". L47E1 and L54A do not require an order of precedence, as both can operate simultaneously. > Or, you have to claim that putting down declarer's hand as dummy is > not > accepting the lead. The problem is, by any definition of > "accepting", that > is accepting the lead. (Or, to put this another way, to follow your > interpretation the lawbook should make clear that putting down > declarer's > hand as dummy is not accepting the lead. Which would mystify everyone, > because we can all see that it is accepting the lead.) > > You also have that when director is called to the table following a > misinformed opening lead out of turn, the director should offer > declarer > the opportunity to put down his hand as dummy. Do you really want > to claim > that? > > Or perhaps I have your point totally wrong. I see now that maybe > you are > saying that once declarer puts down his hand as dummy, he becomes > dummy. > But the misinformed lead is still withdrawn and the correct player > makes > the opening lead. That's an interesting solution! That's how I read it. Declarer spreads his hand and becomes dummy per L54A. Mis-leader may now retract his lead without penalty per L47E1, in which case the correct player leads through the former- dummy-now-declarer's hand, and the new dummy plays fourth to the trick. Not all that interesting -- it produces the same table action as when an ordinary OLOOT comes from the other side of the table and declarer chooses to apply L54B. The difference when L47E1 applies, of course, is that the mis- leader's card "may be retracted", so also may not be, as he chooses. If the L47E1-protected OLOOT induces declarer to put his cards on the table thinking he's the dummy, there they stay, and it's the opening mis-leader who then decides whether to "accept" his own OLOOT or retract it and let his partner fire the first shot. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed May 25 22:47:24 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:47:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? In-Reply-To: <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> References: <9B152724-ED4A-47CC-8AC3-33793FF505E4@btinternet.com> <201105211229.p4LCTJhx021440@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <9ACAF5251FBC4DFA92EE334D11F76ACD@acer> <201105212300.p4LN0Orl017936@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> , , <000601cc1b07$39cba470$ad62ed50$@no> Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > From: svenpran at online.no > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 20:11:52 +0200 > Subject: Re: [BLML] opening lead out of turn, did opps get wrong information? > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > It is reasonable to worry about this gambit (correct word?): I see that > > declarer is getting ready to put his hand down as dummy. I ask if it is > > my > > lead, declarer says yes (incorrectly), and I lead out of turn. At the > > least, partner gets to see my lead. If we get lucky, declarer puts down > > his hand and we get to see his whole hand before we correct the lead. > > > > TFLB seems at first to be crystal clear that a player may retract a > > lead > > out of turn following misleading information about the lead, even when > > declarer has put down his hand as dummy. > > > > But it is not that simple. TFLB puts no deadline on the right to > > correct > > such a lead. I think, following the lawbook blindly, a player has the > > right to retract the lead after the hand has been played out. So the > > director has to decided on a deadline. The logical deadline seems to be > > when partner plays to the opening lead. But, there is ambiguity and > > hence > > choice. > > > > If neither my partner nor I know what the opening lead is, then in a > > sense > > we are just as "offending" as the side that gave the misinformation. So > > if > > my partner cannot complain about lead out of turn as soon as I make it, > > then it is reasonable that our chance to retract the opening lead has > > expired. > > > > I think that is best, but I admit there are other gambits to worry > > about. > > Like declarer putting his hand down with lightning speed so that > > partner > > does not get a chance to correct the lead. So the right to retraction > > perhaps should expire after partner has had a reasonable chance to > > correct > > the opening lead. But in terms of allowing natural play, it seems best > > not > > to allow retraction of an opening lead once declarer has exposed his > > hand. > > I consider Law 54A: > > After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he > becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so > exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes > declarer. > > to settle any question here. ("If declarer begins to spread his hand, > .....") I should think that the point at which Mr. Frick is driving is that while who becomes dummy [etc] by law is to not be undone under such circumstances- and so it shant; that such a retraction by law is to not be prevented, and for what could be after quite a passage of time. Mr. Frick's point is not lost upon me. Very black and white. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri May 27 04:09:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 12:09:30 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4DDCA8CC.8010908@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael [out-of-context phrase from long posting]: ...Richard believes it is OK to take someone's writings out of context and contradict them... Richard Hills [on glass houses throwing the first stone]: The De Wael School believes it is OK to take one Law 20F5(a) phrase out of context to contradict the over- riding requirement in The Fabulous Law Book for truthful disclosure of partnership understandings. Disclosure discussion in an 18th April 2005 posting: [snip] But non-systemic deductions and conclusions need not be revealed. And, of course, deductions and conclusions which are based upon looking at your own cards need not be revealed. For example, an Aussie expert devised an ingenious two-way system to confuse the opponents. The super- scientific (and fully disclosed) auction went: Dealer......Responder 1C(1).......1D(2) 1H(3).......1S(4) 1NT.........Pass (1) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp (2) 0-4 hcp or 16+ hcp (3) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp (4) 0-4 hcp or 19+ hcp Both partners held 19 hcp. An unlucky inferential conclusion by both partners. But their decision to play a grand slam in a partscore was *not* an implicit agreement requiring disclosure. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110527/19a077d4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 31 03:25:25 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:25:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 27th April 2005: >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning >>>>on screen (I usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably >>>>engaged in scratching my back on the top corner of the >>>>screen). Overheard at the table, all players knew I was >>>>there. >>>> >>>>"Was it down one or two?" >>>>"No idea, how about -75?" >>>>"TD won't like it. Toss you for it" >>>> >>>>"Down two, ok" >>>>"Yes" Sven Pran, 28th April 2005: >>>And the "KNEW" you were there !!!!! Indeed. 8-) John (MadDog) Probst, 28th April 2005 >>ok, we all know each other very well, and the teams are great >>personal friends anyway. They know that I would have >>intervened if I had thought it appropriate, but as far as I >>can see a bridge result was obtained and I was not called to >>the table. As I recall after the result was written down one >>of them winked at me, I said "I didn't hear a TD call" and >>there was a nod from round the table. >> >>As Herman says, once they had called on the next hand the >>matter was over, why should I interfere in their game when >>I'm not asked to? Adam Beneschan, 28th April 2005: >Sounds like a place where those T-shirts I used to see, >"Bridge Is Not a Matter of Life and Death---It's Much More >Serious Than That", would be totally out of place. 1997 Law 9B1(a): "The Director _must_ be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." 2007 Law 9B1(a): "The Director _should_ be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." 2007 Introduction: " ... 'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), ... 'must' do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)." Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110531/8a9c9d37/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue May 31 05:43:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:43:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Principles versus details [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34: Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a sense of how likely it is that your judgment is correct. But experts are much more like normal people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood that they're right. A survey on the question of overconfidence by economist Terrence Odean found that physicians, nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and investment bankers all believed that they knew more than they did. Similarly, a recent study of foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of their exchange-rate predictions. In other words, it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that seems to be the rule among experts. The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well calibrated are ***expert bridge players*** and weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance of rain. =+= Matchpoint pairs Dlr: West Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C(1) 3H 3S Pass 4H Pass 5C Pass 6S Pass Pass Pass (1) Strong club, 15+ hcp with any shape Opening lead: Four of hearts NORTH AQ87 AK9 KJ5 QT9 SOUTH J6532 T AQ A7432 As a calibrated expert declarer plan the play. Best wishes Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110531/745ee5fa/attachment.html