From lskelso at ihug.com.au Tue Nov 1 00:01:33 2011 From: lskelso at ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:01:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EAF28CD.2040309@ihug.com.au> On 1/11/2011 9:41 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Infraction --- A player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. An > infraction is also an irregularity (but an irregularity is not > necessarily an infraction). > > International Matchpoint (IMP) --- A unit of scoring awarded according > to a schedule established in Law 78B. > > Irregularity --- A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but > not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. If a > player commits an irregularity, then that player has also committed an > infraction (q.v.). > The second sentence of your 'Irregularity' definition seems to be at odds with the first sentence and also with the 'Infraction' definition. I think you need to interchange a couple of words! Laurie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111031/d8cd31d5/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 1 00:20:12 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:20:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EAF28CD.2040309@ihug.com.au> References: <4EAF28CD.2040309@ihug.com.au> Message-ID: An infraction by a player creates an irregularity, but an irregularity can also occur because of an action or inaction by a non-player. For example, if a board has the wrong dealer marked, or a non-player fouls a board during duplication, or a score is entered wrong, or a player overhears something about a board he has not yet played, or a director makes an incorrect ruling, there is an irregularity, and there is a procedure in the Laws or regulations for dealing with all of these. ----- Original Message ----- From: Laurie Kelso To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 1/11/2011 9:41 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: Infraction - A player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. An infraction is also an irregularity (but an irregularity is not necessarily an infraction). International Matchpoint (IMP) - A unit of scoring awarded according to a schedule established in Law 78B. Irregularity - A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. If a player commits an irregularity, then that player has also committed an infraction (q.v.). The second sentence of your 'Irregularity' definition seems to be at odds with the first sentence and also with the 'Infraction' definition. I think you need to interchange a couple of words! Laurie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20111031/1e66d57d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 1 00:33:01 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:33:01 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:59:33 -0400, wrote: > > Executive Summary > > A respected blmler once wrote, ".....The task of those drafting the > original text of the law is to find words that express the intention of > the > law accurately and securely. The evidence is that divers persons, working > in felicitous conjunction, have found such perfection difficult.....". > > Logical Alternative - there is not any need for "Logical Alternative" to > appear in the 2007 Definitions, since the phrase appears only in the 2007 > Law 16, in which it is defined. But in these drafts "Logical Alternative" > infects Laws other than Law 16, hence it also appearing in this draft of > the Definitions. And the Definition of "Logical Alternative" has been > rewritten to include a cross-reference to my hobby-horse of Law 75A. > > Natural Call - a revised simpler definition included. > > Pack / Deck - currently "sorted deck" appears only in the Definitions, > Law > 6 and the Index. For consistency, "deck" should be deleted, instead > "pack" > and "sorted pack" used throughout. > > Partnership Understanding / Special Partnership Understanding - PU and > SPU > definitions photocopied from Law 40. > > Psychic Call - definition rewritten to be consistent with my other > hobby-horse of Law 40C1. > > 2018 DEFINITIONS, part two > > Logical Alternative ? Note that this term is a misnomer, since a logical > alternative is not necessarily logical. Rather a logical alternative > action > is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods > of the partnership (or using what a player incorrectly used to believe > are > the methods of the partnership before receiving unauthorized information > from partner, see Law 75A), would be given serious consideration by a > significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might > select it. > > Matchpoint ? A unit of scoring awarded to a contestant as a result of > comparison with one or more other scores. See Law 78A. > > Natural Call ? Not an Artificial Call (q.v.) > > Odd Trick ? Each trick to be won by declarer?s side in excess of six. > > Opening Lead ? The card led to the first trick. > > Opponent ? A player of the other side; a member of the partnership to > which > one is opposed. > > Overtrick ? Each trick won by declarer's side in excess of the contract. > > Pack ? The 52 playing cards with which the game is played. > > Partner ? The player with whom one plays as a side against the other two > players at the table. > > Partnership Understanding(s) ? The methods adopted by a partnership may > be > reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience > or > awareness of the players. See also Special Partnership Understanding(s). > > Partscore ? 90 or fewer trick points scored on one deal. > > Pass ? A call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to > bid, double or redouble. > > Penalty ? (See also "Rectification") ? Penalties are of two kinds: > disciplinary ? those applied for the maintenance of courtesy and good > order > (see Law 91), and > procedural ? penalties (additional to any rectification) awarded in the > Director's discretion in cases of procedural irregularities (see Law 90). > > Penalty Card ? A card subject to disposition under Law 50. > > Play ? 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, > including > the first card, which is the lead. 2. The aggregate of plays made. 3. The > period during which the cards are played. 4. The aggregate of the calls > and > plays on a board. > > Play Period ? Commences when the opening lead on a board is faced; > contestants' rights and powers in the play period each expire as the > relevant Law provides. The play period itself ends when the cards are > removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board > of > a round is quitted). > > Premium Points ? Any points earned other than trick points (see Law 77). > > Psychic Call (commonly "psych[e]" or "psychic") ? An intentional and > gross > misstatement of pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Thus an > implicit partnership understanding is necessarily NOT a psychic call. See > Laws 40A3, 40B2(d) and 40C1. > > Rectification ? The remedial provisions to be applied when an > irregularity > has come to the Director's attention. > > Redouble ? A call over an opponent's double, increasing the scoring value > of fulfilled or defeated contracts (see Laws 19B and 77). > > Retracted ? see "Withdrawn". > > RHO ? Right-hand opponent. > > Rotation ? The clockwise progression of the normal turns to call or play; > also the clockwise order in which, one at a time, the cards are > recommended > to be dealt. > > Round ? A part of a session played without progression of players. > > Session ? An extended period of play during which a number of boards, > specified by the Tournament Organizer, is scheduled to be played. (May > have > different meanings as between Laws 4, 12C2 and 91.) > > Side ? Two players at a table who constitute a partnership against the > other two players. > > Slam ? A contract to win six odd tricks (called Small Slam), or to win > seven odd tricks (called Grand Slam). > > Sorted Pack ? A pack (q.v.) of cards not randomized from its prior > condition. > > Special Partnership Understanding(s) ? In its discretion the Regulating > Authority may designate certain partnership understandings (q.v.) as > ?special partnership understandings?. A special partnership understanding > is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not > be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players > in > the tournament. > > 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). > > Team ? Two or more pairs playing in different compass directions at > different tables but for a common score (applicable regulations may > permit > teams of more than four members). > > Trick ? The unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, > composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in > rotation, beginning with the lead. > > Trick Points ? Points scored by declarer's side for fulfilling the > contract > (see Law 77). > > Trump ? Each card of the denomination named in a suit contract. > > Turn ? The correct time at which a player is due to call or play. > > Undertrick ? Each trick by which declarer's side falls short of > fulfilling > the contract (see Law 77). > > Unintended ? Involuntary; not under control of the will; not the > intention > of the player at the moment of the player's action. > > Vulnerability ? The conditions for assigning premiums and undertrick > penalties (see Law 77). > > Withdrawn ? Actions said to be "withdrawn" include actions that are > "cancelled" and cards that are "retracted". What about things that are void? Or can we get rid of that word and replace it with cancelled. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Tue Nov 1 00:55:50 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 10:55:50 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Withdrawn ? Actions said to be "withdrawn" include actions that are "cancelled" and cards that are "retracted". Robert Frick -> What about things that are void? Or can we get rid of that word and replace it with cancelled? Richard Hills -> Pedantry from Robert Frick has already meant that his name will not be writ in water, as I predict his suggestion of "infraction" will replace "infringe" in the 2018 Law 72B1 (given that this Law 72B1 Frick pedantry has already been the subject of a clarifying WBF LC minute). But the purpose of the Definition of Withdrawn is to correctly implement Law 16D. The only appearance of "void" in the Lawbook relates to Law 46B4, declarer's call of a non-existent card from dummy, thus "void" can safely retain its dictionary meaning (especially since one cannot "cancel" something that was null and void in the first place). Simone Weil (1909 - 1943), French essayist and philosopher -> All sins are attempts to fill voids. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111031/1a1f65d7/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 1 01:31:32 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:31:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My belief, which you are calling wrong, is that the lawbook should create technical terms, clearly define them, and then use them as much as possible. So, from my perspective, it was careless to use the word infringe instead of infract or whatever they meant. So we can retract, withdraw, cancel, and void. I think there are a few more in the laws someplace. Why this bewildering array of terms? Why do I have to sit down and wonder if they really meant voided instead of void? Why do we have to have arguments about whether a void designation is withdrawn? Why not just get it right and be clear? Similarly, take the "meaning" of a bid. That appears several places, the meanings of "meaning" are probably different. It lets you, Richard Hill, define that term however you want to make the laws mean what you want. But it isn't good for communication and you have no way of proving you are right. Let's make blml this boring place where no one can find anything important to argue about. Or at least try. The laws desperately need a technical term for 'any legal action'. "Action" is a great candidate. > Withdrawn ? Actions said to be "withdrawn" include actions that are > "cancelled" and cards that are "retracted". > > Robert Frick -> > > What about things that are void? Or can we get rid of that word and > replace > it with cancelled? > > Richard Hills -> > > Pedantry from Robert Frick has already meant that his name will not be > writ > in water, as I predict his suggestion of "infraction" will replace > "infringe" in the 2018 Law 72B1 (given that this Law 72B1 Frick pedantry > has already been the subject of a clarifying WBF LC minute). > > But the purpose of the Definition of Withdrawn is to correctly implement > Law 16D. The only appearance of "void" in the Lawbook relates to Law > 46B4, > declarer's call of a non-existent card from dummy, thus "void" can safely > retain its dictionary meaning (especially since one cannot "cancel" > something that was null and void in the first place). > > Simone Weil (1909 - 1943), French essayist and philosopher -> > > All sins are attempts to fill voids. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Tue Nov 1 01:43:18 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:43:18 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A.P. Herbert, Uncommon Law (1935), "Is it a Free Country?" -> People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament. Richard Hills, prior post -> Infraction / Irregularity - these Definitions are ambiguous in the 2007 Lawbook, my personal preference for resolution of the ambiguity is below, but an alternative resolution is equally satisfactory (unsatisfactory would be a continuation of the ambiguity in 2018). Infraction ? A player's breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. An infraction is also an irregularity (but an irregularity is not necessarily an infraction). Irregularity ? A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. If a player commits an irregularity, then that player has also committed an infraction (q.v.). Laurie Kelso -> The second sentence of your 'Irregularity' definition seems to be at odds with the first sentence and also with the 'Infraction' definition. I think you need to interchange a couple of words! David Grabiner -> An infraction by a player creates an irregularity, but an irregularity can also occur because of an action or inaction by a non-player. For example, if a board has the wrong dealer marked, or a non-player fouls a board during duplication, or a score is entered wrong, or a player overhears something about a board he has not yet played, or a director makes an incorrect ruling, there is an irregularity, and there is a procedure in the Laws or regulations for dealing with all of these. Richard Hills, current post -> Yes, it is David's interpretation of the 2007 ambiguity that I prefer. (The other way to resolve the 2007 ambiguity is to rule that some irregularities committed by players are not infractions.) But obviously I need to interchange a couple of words to make my meaning clear. Second iteration below. Infraction ? A player's deviation from correct procedure. An infraction is also an irregularity (but an irregularity is not necessarily an infraction). Intense Fun ? The fun-damental purpose of Duplicate Bridge. See Law 74A2. Irregularity ? A deviation from correct procedure caused by a spectator and/or by a player and/or by the Director and/or by the Tournament Organizer and/or by the Regulating Authority and/or by Act of God. If a player is wholly or partially responsible (a Law 76 regulation may deem a player to be responsible for a spectator) for an irregularity, then that player has also committed an infraction (q.v.). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111101/35876a82/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 1 02:03:51 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:03:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick -> My belief, which you are calling wrong, is that the lawbook should create technical terms, clearly define them, and then use them as much as possible. [snip] Richard Hills -> My belief, which every sane blmler would call wrong, is that the Lawbook's non-dictionary technical terms should be written in Klingon. Translations from Klingon to English would be found in the Definitions. That way grass-roots Directors would be forced to eschew their current habit of ignoring the Definitions. Or alternatively the Drafting Committee could write as much as possible of the Lawbook in plain English, using technical terms as little as possible, thus assisting grass-roots Directors. What's the problem? paghmo' tIn mIS (which translated from Klingon is Much Ado About Nothing). Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Hierophant Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies 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/20111101/d8b192a8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 1 02:21:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:21:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <860EA210A93944D7B5C33F35F8185100@G3> Message-ID: Richard Willey -> [snip] (On a related note, I think that its probably best to have these sorts of regulations devolve to the lowest possible level rather than being imposed from above) Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (2009) -> Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111101/53e1d581/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 1 03:07:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:07:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 60 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Frick (Proli-fora-tion thread) -> [snip] From my perspective, I could post something on a law and someone could come by a month later, see a problem in it, and post a correction or comment. And vice versa. blml is more like writing on water. [snip] Richard Hills -> From my perspective I read every blml post by every blmler during the next working day (Australian time), except when I am on holidays or when I am having minor heart surgery. I do not unsubscribe from blml when on holidays, and I eventually clear my backlog of blml posts some days after returning from holidays. But ... I try (not always successfully) to limit my responses to blml posts to occasions when I believe (not always correctly) that I have something worthwhile to say. Thus Robert Frick incorrectly considers some of his blml posts to have been writ in water, due to some of them failing to attract a visible reaction, as each and every one of Bob's multitudinous posts has attracted an invisible reaction. Executive Summary A while back there were intense visible reactions on blml, with an unresolved debate on whether a non-offending side's action pursuant to Law 60A1 was an irregularity but not an infraction. Since I believe that an irregularity committed by a player is necessarily an infraction, I have rewritten Law 60A1 to provide a clear bright line. Cross-reference to Law 16D2 added to Law 60A2. Footnote cross-referencing "may" in the Introduction. Footnote clarifying the meaning of RHO. 2018 LAW 60 - PLAY AFTER AN ILLEGAL PLAY A. Play of Card after Irregularity 1. A member of the non-offending side may* accept RHO's** out of turn lead or play. Such an acceptance forfeits any right to further rectification of that out of turn infraction. 2. If the right to further rectification has been forfeited, then the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn (except when Law 53C applies). Therefore Law 16D2 no longer applies to the offending side. 3. If the offending side has a previous obligation to play a penalty card, or to comply with a lead or play restriction, the obligation remains at future turns. B. Defender Plays before Required Lead by Declarer When a defender plays a card after declarer has been required to retract a lead out of turn from either hand, but before declarer has led from the correct hand, the defender's card becomes a major penalty card (Law 50). C. Play by Offending Side before Assessment of Rectification A play by a member of the offending side before rectification has been assessed does not affect the rights of the opponents, and may itself be subject to rectification. * Failure to accept is not wrong (see the Introduction). ** If dummy is on a non-offending defender's right, dummy is deemed to be RHO for the purposes of this Law, despite the LHO declarer being the person who selected dummy's out of turn lead or play. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111101/294295f7/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 1 05:37:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 15:37:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 10.5 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Executive Summary Due to their overlapping subject matter I am proposing the merger of the 2007 Law 10 with the 2007 Law 11 to create a new renumbered 2018 Law 10.5 with rewritten and rearranged clauses. A nitpick by a pedantic blmler has demonstrated that the 2007 Law 10 (which refers to players' rectifications) is not as broad as the 2007 Law 81C2 (which reserves administration and interpretation of the Laws to the Director, not the players).The new 2018 Law 10.5C is a belt-and-braces expanded reiteration of the overly concise 2007 Law 81C2. The new Law 10.5E clarifies that a player giving damaging gratuitous advice to an opponent has committed an infraction. 2018 LAW 10.5 - RECTIFICATIONS A. Action by Non-Offending Side The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. B. Penalty after Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification Even after the right to rectification has been forfeited under this Law, the Director may assess a procedural penalty (see Law 90). C. Director's Lone Power 1. The Director alone has the power to give rulings which administer and interpret these Laws, and the Director alone has the power to advise players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. Any player who usurps the Director's power may be penalized under Law 90 or Law 91. And the Director may allow or cancel any ruling or advice that was given without the Director's instructions. 2. The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative. D. Choice after Irregularity 1. When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available. 2. If a player has more than one option after an irregularity, that player must choose between those options without consulting partner. 3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with more than one option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action. 4. Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50). E. Gratuitous Advice by a Player to Opponents Incorrect advice on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and/or regulations by a player to opponents may cause one or both of the opponents to take an action less successful than otherwise. For example, since bridge is a thinking game one opponent may hesitate (which is not an infraction) before calling, and the player then incorrectly advises that opponent's partner, "You are required by law to pass." When incorrect advice causes damage the Director shall adjust the score (see Law 12). Whether or not gratuitous advice from a player is correct, such advice is a violation of correct procedure (since the Director, not another player, has the responsibility to give advice on Law and regulation), so the Director may assess a procedural penalty (see Law 90). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111101/3c84469d/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 09:26:47 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 04:26:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EAFAD47.8030202@gmail.com> On 10/31/2011 04:59 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hypothetical 2018 Law 85A3 <...> > > * Even if time is very short, the Director shall not make a quick and > dirty ruling or alternatively fail to make a ruling and rely upon an > Appeals Committee to rule; the Director should instead gather many > shards of evidence, then quietly think for perhaps 15 minutes > (Regulating Authorities may vary this recommended time) to give a > considered ruling. Is the intention to abandon any pretense that TFLB is for the use of the humble club TD? In 25 years of playing offline bridge in the UK, I think I can remember two clubs (out of more than twenty) where the TD wasn't normally also playing. OK, so you give the RAs scope to vary this, but why put in a requirement which would be unworkable at grass roots level in the first place? I suppose the other way out is that you want to require a non-playing TD. Brian. From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Tue Nov 1 13:38:03 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:38:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 10.5 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01cc9893$2a13d8e0$7e3b8aa0$@com> Richard Hills writes : Executive Summary Due to their overlapping subject matter I am proposing the merger of the 2007 Law 10 with the 2007 Law 11 to create a new renumbered 2018 Law 10.5 with rewritten and rearranged clauses. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ That is what I have done when making flow charts of Chapter IV, and I put Law 12 on the same. See: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf As a former information scientist and a retired TD I would like to put my two cents on this subject. IMHO, the first and main effort on the next version of Laws should be put on ordering information and not on wording. Before writing a single word Law makers must reconsider the whole batch of information they have and organize it in the best logical order, using real cases and ruling at bridge table as a guide. This is called ?making a plan? and the flow chart approach is the best tool for this task I tried to do many years ago. The new law book should easily be made more enjoyable to club directors and useful to players who all should know the basis of Laws. Laval Du Breuil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111101/0c2472c4/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 1 15:21:57 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:21:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 10.5 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:37:46 -0400, wrote: > > Executive Summary > > Due to their overlapping subject matter I am proposing the merger of the > 2007 Law 10 with the 2007 Law 11 to create a new renumbered 2018 Law 10.5 > with rewritten and rearranged clauses. > > A nitpick by a pedantic blmler has demonstrated that the 2007 Law 10 > (which > refers to players' rectifications) is not as broad as the 2007 Law 81C2 > (which reserves administration and interpretation of the Laws to the > Director, not the players).The new 2018 Law 10.5C is a belt-and-braces > expanded reiteration of the overly concise 2007 Law 81C2. > > The new Law 10.5E clarifies that a player giving damaging gratuitous > advice > to an opponent has committed an infraction. > > 2018 LAW 10.5 - RECTIFICATIONS > > A. Action by Non-Offending Side > > The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either > member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the > Director. The Director does so rule, for example, when the non-offending > side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law. > > B. Penalty after Forfeiture of the Right to Rectification > > Even after the right to rectification has been forfeited under this Law, > the Director may assess a procedural penalty (see Law 90). > > C. Director's Lone Power > > 1. The Director alone has the power to give rulings which administer and > interpret these Laws, and the Director alone has the power to advise > players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. Any player who > usurps the Director's power may be penalized under Law 90 or Law 91. And > the Director may allow or cancel any ruling or advice that was given > without the Director's instructions. > > 2. The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive ? see > Law > 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative. > > D. Choice after Irregularity > > 1. When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director > shall explain all the options available. > > 2. If a player has more than one option after an irregularity, that > player > must choose between those options without consulting partner. > > 3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with more than one option > after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to > select the most advantageous action. > > 4. Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is > appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to > their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own > infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50). > > E. Gratuitous Advice by a Player to Opponents > > Incorrect advice on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and/or regulations by a > player to opponents may cause one or both of the opponents to take an > action less successful than otherwise. For example, since bridge is a > thinking game one opponent may hesitate (which is not an infraction) > before > calling, and the player then incorrectly advises that opponent's partner, > "You are required by law to pass." When incorrect advice causes damage > the > Director shall adjust the score (see Law 12). Nice idea here. Right now, when one player gives bad advice and the other side accepts it, I essentially treat the accepting side as the offending side. They should not have accepted the advice and they should have called the director. So I make no effort to correct the ruling. This revision seems better -- I would like to correct the score, it seems fair, and it would slow people down from giving table rulings they are not sure about. Whether or not gratuitous > advice from a player is correct, such advice is a violation of correct > procedure (since the Director, not another player, has the responsibility > to give advice on Law and regulation), so the Director may assess a > procedural penalty (see Law 90). Well, it speeds up the game when they don't call me. And if I am busy with something else, it helps me too. The reality is, there is no problem with players making their own rulings and agreements as long as they are happy with them. But yes, I should have the right to give a procedural penalty to someone for this, say if I have warned them about giving wrong rulings and they continue to do so, especially against weaker opponents. (And especially if I suspect they might be doing it on purpose.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 1 22:17:06 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:17:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter Eidt -> The proposal for Appendix A is good - in principle. Nevertheless I have stomach-ache with 2 points: [snip] Richard Hills -> Another respected blmler emailed me privately, cogently pointing out multiple flaws in my original approach. Therefore I am proposing a revised and much simpler second draft. 2018 Appendix A, Default Alert Regulation Law 40 states, "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods." If a Regulating Authority does not wish to create its own Alert Regulation, it may choose (if it so wishes) to copy the state-of-the-art ABF Alert Regulation. See: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111101/5ee7b099/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 1 23:17:13 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 09:17:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EAFAD47.8030202@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hypothetical 2018 Law 85 hypothetical footnote -> * Even if time is very short, the Director shall not make a quick and dirty ruling or alternatively fail to make a ruling and rely upon an Appeals Committee to rule; the Director should instead gather many shards of evidence, then quietly think for perhaps 15 minutes (Regulating Authorities may vary this recommended time) to give a considered ruling. [snip] Brian Meadows -> Is the intention to abandon any pretense that TFLB is for the use of the humble club TD? In 25 years of playing offline bridge in the UK, I think I can remember two clubs (out of more than twenty) where the TD wasn't normally also playing. OK, so you give the RAs scope to vary this, but why put in a requirement which would be unworkable at grass roots level in the first place? I suppose the other way out is that you want to require a non-playing TD. Richard Hills -> Oops. My drafting error was caused by my current environment of the Canberra Bridge Club, which very unusually (for a club) has non-playing Directors even for its non-expert sessions. Revised hypothetical 2018 Law 85 revised hypothetical footnote -> * The Director shall quickly but accurately determine purely mechanical rulings (for example, a Law 48A mechanical ruling on declarer's accidentally dropped card). But for a judgement ruling (for example, ruling on whether unauthorized information has caused damage) the Director could perhaps defer a ruling until later in or shortly after the session, but within the Law 79C correction period. However, the Director must not fail to make a judgement ruling and instead rely upon an Appeals Committee to rule. Ideally for a judgement ruling the Director should instead gather many shards of evidence (perhaps consulting with peers if assessing logical alternatives). The Director should then calmly analyse the judgement ruling with all due deliberate speed (Regulating Authorities may define "due", "deliberate" and "speed") so as to provide a considered ruling which is equitable to both sides, see Law 84D. Even if time is very short, the Director must not rely on evidence presented from only one side. If exceptional circumstances prevent the Director from hearing evidence from both sides, the Director must independently collect additional evidence before making a ruling. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111101/325cde0b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 2 00:00:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:00:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 10.5 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick the First argues "no problem" -> Well, it speeds up the game when they don't call me. And if I am busy with something else, it helps me too. The reality is, there is no problem with players making their own rulings and agreements as long as they are happy with them. Robert Frick the Second argues "problem" -> But yes, I should have the right to give a procedural penalty to someone for this, say if I have warned them about giving wrong rulings and they continue to do so, especially against weaker opponents. (And especially if I suspect they might be doing it on purpose.) Richard Hills -> In my opinion, Bob the First has a beautifully childlike naive view of the bridge world. My more ugly adult view of the bridge world is that there are many expert ch**ts who are willing to baffle bunnies with intentionally dodgy rulings(1), and the baffled bunnies are happy to be ch**t*d with those intentionally dodgy rulings(1). So I mostly agree with Bob the Second. My quibble with Bob the Second is that when I was one of three playing co-Directors at the South Canberra Bridge Club I did not warn players merely against giving wrong rulings, I warned players against giving ANY rulings(2). To drive home this point, when an irregularity arose at my own table, I was careful to summon another playing co-Director (despite my knowledge of the Lawbook being many times greater than that of my co-Director). Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) Harder to detect and therefore more frequent are intentionally dodgy claims by ch**t*ng experts. (2) Since any ruling by a player is incorrect procedure, therefore ipso facto wrong. Plus, in practice, almost every player has not memorised the Lawbook, so a player may give a partially accurate and partially inaccurate ruling. For example a player may be aware that a faced card touching the table is normally a played card, but that player may be unaware that Law 48A permits declarer to retract an accidentally dropped card without rectification. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111101/20482ea2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 2 01:19:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:19:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Knowingly and Unknowingly [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Donald Rumsfeld, not only the youngest but also the oldest American Secretary of Defense -> [T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns ? the ones we don't know we don't know. Executive Summary Because the 2007 Law 79A2 uses the adjective "knowingly", the Law is very difficult to enforce. So my reworded 2018 Law 79A2 deletes "knowingly" and also clarifies a player's obligations (parallel to a player's obligations under Law 16C). A third sentence added to the 2018 Law 79C1 clarifying the unlimited power that the Director holds under Law 91A. 2018 LAW 79 - TRICKS WON A. Agreement on Tricks Won 1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board. 2. A player must neither accept the score for a trick that the opponents actually won, nor accept the concession of a trick that the opponents could not lose. If and when the player later realises that such an error has occurred, that player must immediately summon the Director (see B below). B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends the Director rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but the Director shall be under no obligation to increase a side's score. C. Error in Score 1. An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the Tournament Organizer. Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later* time, this Correction Period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. But the Director is permitted to award a Law 91A reduction in a side's score due to a Disciplinary Penalty whether or not the Correction Period has already expired. 2. Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record is wrong. * An earlier time may be specified when required by the special nature of a contest. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111102/b40172d3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 2 02:51:13 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:51:13 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Director, darling! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills, July 2004 -> Many years ago, top Aussie player Annie Grenside was playing in the Australian Women's Teams Championship. After an infraction occurred at the table, she raised her hand and called, "Director, darling!" It so happened that Australia's CTD at that time was Annie's then husband, Richard Grenside. :-) Of course, Richard Grenside gave a professional ruling, despite his then wife being an interested party. More recently, Nigel (and others) had some legitimate concerns about my TD ruling against another Canberra expert. (See the thread, "Penalised for not knowing your system".) It so happens that that ruling was another "Director, darling!" case, since the Canberra expert concerned is one of my regular team-mates. But being a regular team-mate did not prevent me giving him what he (and some blmlers) thought was the rough end of the pineapple. John (MadDog) Probst, July 2004 -> Yeah, can you imagine the effect of "DA-----DDY!" across a 100-table Swiss? The whole friggin room erupts. He usually takes my rulings to appeal on various grounds: 1) He hates me 2) He's clueless 3) He always rules against me. OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed through the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the cork. John Executive Summary Law 81B1 footnote clarifies that the Director (unlike the Tournament Organizer) is not necessarily hamstrung by the absence of a Condition of Contest, but instead the Director is explicitly empowered to create an ex post facto Condition of Contest. Addition of the word "relevantly" and footnote to Law 81C2 which is in accordance with 2008 WBF LC minutes (page 4). Rewritten Law 81C3 and footnote explicitly states Grattan Endicott's personal idea about the timing of "in any manner". Footnote to Law 81C5 limiting the scope of "for cause". Expanded Law 81C7 for clarity, including a for example mention of the Recorder. In Law 82D phraseology of "Director in charge" (capital "D") and "assistant directors" (lower-case "d"). The footnote is borrowed from a WBF Code of Practice appeals example (when an appeals committee's time was in fact wasted). 2018 LAW 81 - THE DIRECTOR A. Official Status The Director is the official representative of the Tournament Organizer. B. Restrictions and Responsibilities 1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. The Director has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer.* 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: 1. to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game. 2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to relevantly** advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. 3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which the Director becomes aware (but not necessarily as soon as the Director becomes aware***) in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. 4. to assess rectification when applicable and to exercise the powers given in Laws 90 and 91. 5. to waive rectification for cause****, in the Director's discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side. 6. to adjust disputes. 7. to refer any matter to an appropriate committee and/or appropriate person (for example, the official Recorder). 8. to report results for the official record if the Tournament Organizer requires it and to deal with any other matters delegated by the Tournament Organizer. D. Delegation of Duties The Director in charge may delegate any duties to assistant directors, but the Director in charge is not thereby relieved of responsibility for the correct performance of those delegated duties by those assistant directors.***** * The Tournament Organizer must publish Conditions of Contest in advance, but the Director is permitted, if necessary, to create ex post facto Conditions of Contest. ** The Director confines such advice to the rights and responsibilities of the players that are relevant to the situation that the Director is dealing with. *** For example, the Director may become aware of an established revoke during the play of a deal, but the non-offending side may be blissfully unaware of the established revoke. In that case the Director should delay drawing attention to the established revoke until only Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is applicable. An earlier intervention by the Director during the play would unfairly give a "windfall" advantage to the non-offending side. **** An example of insufficient cause would be, "The opponents are my friends, and we have no chance of winning but they do." ***** In particular the Director in charge should review an assistant director's ruling which may be appealed. The Director in charge should ease the squeeze on the appeals committee by reversing an incorrect ruling by an assistant director immediately, rather than waste the appeals committee's time by requiring them to do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111102/72c7f1e3/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Nov 2 03:29:22 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 22:29:22 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 16 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is as if you paid no attention. The correct way to write L16A is as follows. Everything from opponents is AI except.... Everything from partner is UI except....... Other comments below > > > 2018 Law 16 Executive Summary > > The renumbered Law 16B1 has now been rewritten for clarity. Law 16B1 now > includes a reference to Law 20G1 and also now includes a reference to > Announcements. However, although Law 16B1 is now clearer it is also now > perhaps excessively long, with clauses extending from (a) to (m). > > Slight clarification of Laws 16B3 and 16B4, changed from "When..." format > to "If... then..." format. > > In addition, a comprehensive rewrite of Law 16B4 and its associated > footnote. > > The footnote "i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of the player's > action" should perhaps be reworded by the new Drafting Committee, since > in > an earlier blml debate David Burn had some difficulty divining its > intended > meaning. On the other hand, when DALB and myself were simultaneously > consulted on the language of the WBF Code of Practice, DALB failed to > comprehend some CoP language that I thought was very straightforward, so > perhaps this is merely a DALB iconoclastic quirk vis-a-vis the word > "basis". > > Responding to an idea of John (MadDog) Probst is the bracketed statement > in > Law 16A1(c), which is based on the WBF Laws Committee minutes 10th > October > 2008 which over-ruled MadDog's idea. > > Footnote to Law 16A1(d) emphasising that aids to memory are illegal. > > Law 16B1(b), now renumbered as Law 16B2, has an added footnote in > accordance with WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th October 2010, item 3. > And > added is a confirming clarification in brackets that LAs are determined > in > the assumed absence of UI. > > 2018 LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION > > A. Players' Use of Information > > 1. A player may use information in the auction or play if: > > (a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board > (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected > by > unauthorized information from another source; or > > (b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or > > (c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized This requires essentially the whole lawbook to be read in order to discover what is AI and what is UI. Which if it was needed, I guess you would bite the bullet, or rotten egg, or whatever it is. But I doubt you need this if you start right. > or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures > authorized in these laws (but a player is not entitled to be reminded of > the legal procedures, for example a player may not ask the Director to > recite the IMP table in Law 78B) and in regulations - but see B1 > following; > or > > (d) it is information that the player possessed before the player's hand > was removed from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude the > player's use of this information.* We discussed this, right? I think you spent too much effort defending the laws. Opponent opens 2D, my partner tells me our defense to this bid, then we take our hands out of the board. My partner looks at his hand before I take my hand out of the board and reminds me we are playing weak no trumps. > > 2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of > the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament > regulations. > > 3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such > information > being designated extraneous). > > 4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director > adjusts > the score in accordance with Law 12C. > > B. Extraneous Information from Partner > > 1. If a partner makes available to a player extraneous information that > may > suggest a call or play, by: > > (a) partner's withdrawn call or retracted card as an offender (see D2 > below), or > > (b) an answer by an opponent to partner's illegal question (Law 20G1), or > > (c) partner's exposed card during the auction (Law 24) or play (Law 49), > or > > (d) partner's aid to the player's memory (Law 40C3(a)), or > > (e) partner's defensive concession (Law 68B2), or > > (f) partner's objection to the player's defensive concession (Law 68B2), > or > > (g) partner's remark (see, for example, the Law 68 footnote), or > > (h) partner's question (Law 73B1), or > > (i) partner's failure to ask a question (Law 73B1), or > > (j) partner's reply to an opponent's question (Law 73B1), or > > (k) partner's unexpected** alert or announcement, or > > (l) partner's unexpected** failure to alert or announce, or > > (m) partner's unmistakable hesitation or unwonted speed or special > emphasis > or tone or gesture or movement or mannerism, The idea should be to organize the laws, not disorganize them. L16A should explain what is AI and what is UI. Not spread them out into two places, ESPECIALLY if the two are inconsistent. > > then > > the player may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could > demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information. Rather, the player must carefully avoid taking any advantage > from that unauthorized information from partner (Law 73C). > > 2. A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players > in > question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious > consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is > judged some might select it (if and only if that class of players were > unaware of the unauthorized information).*** > > 3. If a player considers that an opponent has made such information > available and that damage could well result, then that player may > announce, > unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the > Director be called), that that player reserves the right to summon the > Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if > they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been > conveyed). > > 4. If a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who > had a > logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested > by > such information, then that player should**** not summon the Director > immediately, but instead wait until the end of play. At the end of play, > if > the player has substantial reason to believe that zero damage has been > caused, then the player should**** still avoid summoning the Director. > But > if the player believes damage may well have occurred, then the player > should**** summon the Director when play ends. The Director shall assign > an > adjusted score (see Law 12C) if the Director considers that an infraction > of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender. > > C. Extraneous Information from Other Sources > > 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a > board the player is playing or has yet to play, for example by looking at > the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards > at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at the > player's own table before the auction begins, the Director should be > notified immediately, preferably by the recipient of the information. > > 2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with > normal play the Director may, before any call has been made: > > (a) adjust the players' positions at the table, if the type of contest > and > scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will > hold that hand; or > > (b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for > those contestants; or > > (c) allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an > adjusted score if the Director judges that unauthorized information may > have affected the result; or > > (d) award an artificial adjusted score. > > 3. If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in > the > auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board the > Director proceeds as in 2(c). > > D. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays > > When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide: > > 1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn > action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. > > 2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn > action > and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A > player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative > actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by > the > unauthorized information. > > * Law 40C3(a) precludes aids to memory. For example, it is not sufficient > for a player to have learnt the partnership methods as that player must > also remember those methods without any assistance from partner. > > ** i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of the player's action. > > *** But the call or play made at the table is always deemed to be a > logical > alternative, so it is always permitted for a Director or appeals > committee > to rule that the call or play made at the table is an illegal > demonstrably > suggested logical alternative. However, despite being deemed to be a > logical alternative, the call or play made at the table could well be a > "dumping" infraction of Law 72A. > > **** The Introduction defines "should" as "failure to do it is an > infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized". > So > summoning the Director later is a mild infraction which merely > jeopardizes > the summoner's chance of an adjusted score (due to greater difficulty for > the Director in determining the facts at a later time). And summoning the > Director earlier is also a mild time-wasting infraction (not only is it > impossible for the Director to give a Law 16B ruling before the end of > play, but also a ruling may be unnecessary if at the end of play the > non-offending side discovers that it is undamaged). > > Book of ACBL, Chapter Two, Verses Nine through Twenty-One > > And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Stop > Card. > Then shalt thou count to ten seconds, no more, no less. Ten shall be the > seconds thou shalt count, and the seconds of the counting shall be ten. > Eleven seconds shalt thou not count, neither count thou nine seconds, > excepting that thou then proceed to ten seconds. Twelve seconds is right > out. Once the number ten, being the tenth number, be reached, then > lobbest > thou thy Holy Law 16B Director Call of Antioch towards thy foe, who, > being > naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 2 09:39:28 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:39:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law In-Reply-To: References: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4EB101C0.8060605@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/10/2011 2:10, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [AG] Some bids don't need any explanation. What do you do in those cases ? > [Nigel] If its meaning is not on the matrix then you must explain. For > example, the Sharples brothers used meaningless so-called "impulse" bids. > > [AG] I experimented with this (behind screens) and it works well. > [Nigel] Good! > > [AG] but loses time when you explain and they don't care, which is more > common. > [Nigel] It should take the same time to point to square in a matrix as to > alert. > Because every call is explained, explanations don't interrupt the > rhythm of the auction. AG : This goes against my experience of the matrix system. The opponents need to see what you're doing ; IRL the difference between alerting and not alerting serves as an attntion-catcher when it's needed ; here it wouldn't work, and they'll be careful (losing time) too often. Take an example : if 1S-2C isn't alerted, most of the time opponents won't care whether it's 1RF or GF or whether it could be a 3-card suit in a pinch etc. If you alert (perhaps playing unpassed Drury or some kind of relay) they'll ask ; but few pairs do play this. Using the matrix principle or explaining without the matrix will take quite a bit time, *because explanations have to be complete* From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 2 09:54:21 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:54:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EB1053D.40309@ulb.ac.be> Le 30/10/2011 22:28, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Richard Hills -> > > Yes and No. Good filtering. On your suggestion I will modify clause 5 > to read: > > /If screens are not in use, then do NOT alert the following: > / > /5. All doubles (but frequently occurring doubles which the opponents > may be unlikely to expect should be pre-Alerted at the start of the > round or match)./ > > Many of the world's Regulating Authorities, for example the EBU, > require unusual doubles to be Alerted _during the auction_ so as to > save time and mostly avoid disadvantaging the opponents. But some of > the world's Regulating Authorities, for example Belgium and the ABF, > prohibit any double from being Alerted during the auction (since many > partnerships have uncertain agreements about their doubles, and an > Alert would allow those shaky partnerships to create a new agreement > about that double _during the auction_). > AG : and this regulation is catastrophic. It has led to all sorts of bad things : a - pairs devising umpteen very artificial doubles and redoubles (non-frequently-occurring) because they know that opponents would be left unaware ; and resentment from this ; b - UI from questions about doubles because you think they could perhaps have been special ; c - help to the doubler's side from the fact that you ask ; d c- secretary-birding of the worst kind when a double was alerted due to the force of habit. Also, doubles are very sensible to confusion coming from the fact that very similar sequences might be treated very differently. When you heard the first, you are caught unaware to the fact that the second might be different. I play that 1NT-3C-Dbl is for penalties, but 1NT-3D-Dbl is for takeout. How are they to guess that ? (yes, there is a reason. Mosrt pairs play that 2C is artificial and will bid 3C when unsafe ; and 3D is free as a takeout bid) Better would be to allow opponents to specifically ask doubles and redoubles not to be alerted if they feel it would help you. But would it be easy to use ? Still better perhaps would be to state that doubles and redoubles shall only be alerted if their meaning isn't one of the classical ones, e.g. when they refer to a specific suit, like 1NT-2D-Dbl : transfer. > However, the ABF requires pre-Alerts of all frequently occurring > unexpected calls (not merely doubles). This good faith disclosure has > definitely not proved impractical in real life. For example, the > Ali-Hills partnership does not pre-Alert the nature of a rare double > in a game-force relay auction. But on the other hand 1H - (1S) - X = > negative in 99.9% of the expert world, but Ali-Hills play it as > penalties, so we pre-Alert. > AG : right, but see a- above Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111102/a9e8a52e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 3 23:11:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:11:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Excursive Summary Many years ago a gafiated blmler argued that a 1997 Law 90 "offence" was broader in scope than a 1997 "infraction" (i.e. the Director could apply a procedural penalty to a non-offending side). This idea was partially refuted by the 2007 Definition of "infraction". To avoid any ambiguity whatsoever I have replaced "offence" with "infraction". In addition Law 90A is rewritten to include advice on how and how much a PP should be applied. I have borrowed an idea from Herman De Wael, suggesting that the Director should be particularly inclined to award a procedural penalty when the law concerned particularly mentions a procedural penalty. But I have also clarified that _any_ infraction may cause the Director (if the Director is so inclined) to award a procedural penalty. 2018 LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES A. Director's Authority after any Infraction To encourage an offending side* to repent for any infraction it has made, the Director, in addition to implementing a rectification prescribed by these Laws, may also judge it appropriate to assess a procedural penalty (usually subtracting matchpoints or imps or victory points, etc). The appropriate procedural penalty varies in magnitude according to the severity of the infraction and the expertise of the offending side. (For example, a severe infraction by a novice player deserves the mildest possible procedural penalty of an educative lecture from the Director.) Regulating Authorities may provide guidance to Directors on the application of procedural penalties. B. Infractions Particularly Subject to Procedural Penalty These infractions are particularly** subject to procedural penalty: 1. arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time. 2. unduly slow play by a contestant. 3. discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table. 4. unauthorized comparison of scores with another contestant. 5. touching or handling of cards belonging to another player (see Law 7). 6. placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board. 7. errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant. 8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director. * or offending player in an individual event, see Law 12C3. ** If another Law (for example Law 40B5) specifically mentions a procedural penalty, then an infraction of that Law is also particularly subject to procedural penalty. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111103/726c8f9d/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 4 02:06:43 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:06:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention Message-ID: It is exceedingly common for partnerships to agree to play a convention by name with no further discussion. The laws should be able to handle this. An extended discussion on blml and considerable thought on my part, suggested to me that this was impossible. The problem, I think, was trying to use "mutual understanding". A simple law that seems to work well is something like this: When players agree on a convention only by name, hopefully the convention is well-defined and it is clear to all what their agreement is. The Director should rule misexplanation (as opposed to misbid) if the disputed feature of the convention is unclear. Example: 1C P 1S 3D X Described as penalty, meant actually to be a support double. From today, actually. As no one plays support doubles this high, the ruling would be misbid. In contrast... 1C P 1D 1S X If the double was meant as a support double but not described that way, or not meant as a support double but described that way, the ruling would be misexplanation, assuming that players in this area have no clear agreement whether or not support doubles are on in this situation. Note that the examples could be identical in terms of mutual understanding -- the players have a different understanding of what they are agreeing to when they agreed to play "support doubles" and at the table. However, different ruling are given. This probably corresponds to how directors rule now. Any problems? Suggestions? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 4 02:13:53 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:13:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proposed change: Weaken L62A Message-ID: Change in content: Weaken L62A 2007: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." Suggested change: "A revoke must be corrected if it is noted before it becomes established." A player notices he has revoked. The current laws require him to point out the irregularity. This seems to be completely unenforceable. In other words, a player can (1) decide not to point out his revoke and then (2) claim he didn't notice. It is undesirable to have laws that benefit liars and punish people for being honest. There would seem to be no harm to playing bridge under this change. The laws do not require players to point out their established revokes. The laws do not even require the partner of the revoke to point out unestablished revokes. This apparently creates no problems. I see no problems with requiring the revoke to be corrected once it is noted at the table. The alternative -- giving the player a choice -- would seem to just slow down the game and give the director a potentially difficult calculation of equity. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 4 02:45:27 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:45:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 21 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: R.H. Tawney (1880 - 1962) -> Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows. Robert Frick (parallel thread) -> [snip] Example: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1C........Pass......1S........3D X Described as penalty, meant actually to be a support double. From today, actually. As no one plays support doubles this high, the ruling would be misbid. Richard Hills -> The expert pike does not play support doubles that high, for good and sufficient reasons. But the novice minnow may well have an inefficient pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Only an incompetent Director would automatically rule misbid. A competent Director would investigate further by asking questions and examining the System Cards. Indeed some novice minnows keep meticulous System Cards listing all of their inefficient conventions, so the System Cards may state "support doubles up to and including 3H, plus negative doubles up to and including 7H". Robert Frick (parallel thread) -> In contrast... WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 1C........Pass......1D........1S X If the double was meant as a support double but not described that way, or not meant as a support double but described that way, the ruling would be misexplanation, assuming that players in this area have no clear agreement whether or not support doubles are on in this situation. [snip] Richard Hills -> That second ruling is a competent ruling, consistent with the 2007 Law 21B1 (b) / 2018 Law 21B1(a). Executive Summary The WBF Laws Committee discovered that Law 20F4 pointed the Director to Law 21B, but that Law 21B did not tell the Director how to proceed. I have fixed that problem in this draft of Law 21. I have also reordered the clauses of Law 21B for easier comprehension by a grass-roots Director. Plus extra details and/or cross-references have been added. 2018 LAW 21 - CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION A. Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of that player's own misunderstanding. B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent 1. (a) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See Law 75 for a detailed indicative example. (b) Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation. 2. When it is too late to change a particular call (for example, in a belated Law 20F4 correction of misinformation) the Director requires the auction and play to continue. At the end of play, if the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, then the Director awards an adjusted score. 3. Until the end of the auction period and provided that a player's partner has not subsequently called, that player may change a call without other rectification for their side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to that player by an opponent (see Law 17E). At the end of play, if the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, then the Director awards an adjusted score. 4. When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 3 preceding), that player's LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call LHO may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges the LHO's withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111104/a845a5b0/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 4 03:05:18 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:05:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Law 21 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:45:27 -0400, wrote: > > > R.H. Tawney (1880 - 1962) -> > > Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows. > > Robert Frick (parallel thread) -> > > [snip] > Example: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1C........Pass......1S........3D > X > > Described as penalty, meant actually to be a support double. From today, > actually. As no one plays support doubles this high, the ruling would be > misbid. > > Richard Hills -> > > The expert pike does not play support doubles that high, for good and > sufficient reasons. But the novice minnow may well have an inefficient > pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. Only an incompetent > Director > would automatically rule misbid. A competent Director would investigate > further by asking questions and examining the System Cards. That would be silly in this particular case, of course. Only an incompetent director would have looked at their system card. I am not sure what your point is. Indeed some > novice minnows keep meticulous System Cards listing all of their > inefficient conventions, so the System Cards may state "support doubles > up > to and including 3H, plus negative doubles up to and including 7H". > > Robert Frick (parallel thread) -> > > In contrast... > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 1C........Pass......1D........1S > X > > If the double was meant as a support double but not described that way, > or > not meant as a support double but described that way, the ruling would be > misexplanation, assuming that players in this area have no clear > agreement > whether or not support doubles are on in this situation. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > That second ruling is a competent ruling, consistent with the 2007 Law > 21B1 > (b) / 2018 Law 21B1(a). > > Executive Summary > > The WBF Laws Committee discovered that Law 20F4 pointed the Director to > Law > 21B, but that Law 21B did not tell the Director how to proceed. I have > fixed that problem in this draft of Law 21. > > I have also reordered the clauses of Law 21B for easier comprehension by > a > grass-roots Director. > > Plus extra details and/or cross-references have been added. > > 2018 LAW 21 - CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION > > A. Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding > > No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of > that player's own misunderstanding. > > B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent > > 1. (a) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken > Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See Law 75 for a > detailed > indicative example. > > (b) Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the > Regulating > Authority is deemed misinformation. > > 2. When it is too late to change a particular call (for example, in a > belated Law 20F4 correction of misinformation) the Director requires the > auction and play to continue. At the end of play, if the Director judges > that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, then > the > Director awards an adjusted score. > > 3. Until the end of the auction period and provided that a player's > partner > has not subsequently called, that player may change a call without other > rectification for their side when the Director judges that the decision > to > make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to > that player by an opponent (see Law 17E). At the end of play, if the > Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the > irregularity, then the Director awards an adjusted score. > > 4. When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as > in 3 > preceding), that player's LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call > LHO may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the > hand the Director judges the LHO's withdrawn call to have conveyed such > information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D > applies. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Fri Nov 4 04:26:57 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:26:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 21 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills -> [snip] Only an incompetent Director would automatically rule misbid. A competent Director would investigate further by asking questions and examining the System Cards. [snip] Robert Frick -> That would be silly in this particular case, of course. Only an incompetent director would have looked at their system card. I am not sure what your point is. Richard Hills -> "Automatically" and "immediately" are not synonyms. The Director's non-automatic ruling on possible MI (when looking at the System Cards by the Director is appropriate) should be deferred by the partner of the possible misexplainer to: (a) the Correction Period -- for determination of whether or not the putative declaring side gave MI, or (b) the end of play -- for determination of whether or not the defending side gave MI. I am sure that my point is "we play negative doubles up to and including 7H". Robert Frick, prior parallel post -> [snip] As no one plays [negative] doubles this high, the ruling would be misbid. [snip] Richard Hills -> Truth is stranger than fiction. In the 1980s my Young Turk partnership encountered another Young Turk partnership who were so enamoured of non-penalty doubles that they did write "we play negative doubles up to and including 7H" on their System Cards. What's the problem? George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1898) -> Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111104/c6c76737/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 4 11:29:47 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:29:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EB3BE9B.901@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2011 2:06, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > > Example: > > 1C P 1S 3D > X > > Described as penalty, meant actually to be a support double. From today, > actually. As no one plays support doubles this high AG : no one ? It is a rather popular treatment here to play them up to 3 of responder's suit. BTW, there aare umpteen cases of a pair having agreed to play something very uncommon, so what's the argument here ? Surely you don't mean that, because Lea overcalls are rare throughout the world, the 5-6 Belgian pairs who play them (as locally popularized by YT) are freed from the onus of proving there was misbid rather than misexplanation ? Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 4 14:55:32 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:55:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention In-Reply-To: <4EB3BE9B.901@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EB3BE9B.901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:29:47 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 4/11/2011 2:06, Robert Frick a ?crit : >> >> >> Example: >> >> 1C P 1S 3D >> X >> >> Described as penalty, meant actually to be a support double. From today, >> actually. As no one plays support doubles this high > AG : no one ? It is a rather popular treatment here to play them up to 3 > of responder's suit. > > BTW, there aare umpteen cases of a pair having agreed to play something > very uncommon, so what's the argument here ? > Surely you don't mean that, because Lea overcalls are rare throughout > the world, the 5-6 Belgian pairs who play them (as locally popularized > by YT) are freed from the onus of proving there was misbid rather than > misexplanation ? I meant that because no one plays them that high *here*, I don't really need to look on the card. Add in that the one player is fairly expert and plays a standard system. That's an important part of how I visualize the new laws. The director has to decide what a convention name communicates at his club or in his area. He can consult with other people to make this decision. For the local Belgian pairs, if their card says Lea overcalls and then the question is if an explanation of a bid was correct, I think you would have to ask the experts what "Lea overcalls" means. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 4 16:24:59 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:24:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention In-Reply-To: References: <4EB3BE9B.901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4EB403CB.1050509@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2011 14:55, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:29:47 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > >> Le 4/11/2011 2:06, Robert Frick a ?crit : >>> >>> >>> Example: >>> >>> 1C P 1S 3D >>> X >>> >>> Described as penalty, meant actually to be a support double. From >>> today, >>> actually. As no one plays support doubles this high >> AG : no one ? It is a rather popular treatment here to play them up >> to 3 of responder's suit. >> >> BTW, there aare umpteen cases of a pair having agreed to play >> something very uncommon, so what's the argument here ? >> Surely you don't mean that, because Lea overcalls are rare throughout >> the world, the 5-6 Belgian pairs who play them (as locally >> popularized by YT) are freed from the onus of proving there was >> misbid rather than misexplanation ? > > I meant that because no one plays them that high *here*, I don't > really need to look on the card. Add in that the one player is fairly > expert and plays a standard system. > > That's an important part of how I visualize the new laws. The director > has to decide what a convention name communicates at his club or in > his area. He can consult with other people to make this decision. > > For the local Belgian pairs, if their card says Lea overcalls and then > the question is if an explanation of a bid was correct, I think you > would have to ask the experts what "Lea overcalls" means. Well, nobody here gives them this name. It was just shorthand. (the name is given in some books about conventions) Let me be more precise : the fact that 98% of European bridge players play (1M) 2m as natural, usually one-suited, doesn't mean that a pair at random doesn't play them 2-suited. The statement is dangerous ; it is even a bit circular : they do'nt play strange conventions, that's called playing standard, whence they don't play this strange convention. Or, more abruptly : is the TD the right person to decide that a pair plays "standard" ? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 4 18:04:30 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:04:30 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection Message-ID: I have a need to know how other countries beside the USA qualify teams for international play (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) Our method of team quals allows a non-expert moneybags to buy and play on a team that is good enough to qualify but hard-put to win an international event. Thankis to Richard Hills for telling me that nationally Australia uses a "brownie points" system. Various major and minor national events are awarded various points for victories and minor placings. At the end of the "brownie point" year, the players or partnerships who hold the most brownie points negotiate with each other to eventually form circa half-a-dozen teams, which then have a teams playoff for the Bermuda Bowl etc. That seems almost perfect, although brownie points for more than one year would seem preferable. Not sure this is a suitable BLML subject, but anyway I would be grateful for information about the methods of other countries. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 4 18:15:52 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:15:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EB41DC8.5050606@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2011 18:04, Marvin French a ?crit : > I have a need to know how other countries beside the USA qualify > teams for international play (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) Our method of team > quals allows a non-expert moneybags to buy and play on a team that > is good enough to qualify but hard-put to win an international > event. > > Thankis to Richard Hills for telling me that nationally Australia > uses a "brownie points" system. Various major and minor national > events are awarded various points for victories and minor placings. > At the end of the "brownie point" year, the players or partnerships > who hold the most brownie points negotiate with each other to > eventually form circa half-a-dozen teams, which then have a teams > playoff for the Bermuda Bowl etc. > > That seems almost perfect, although brownie points for more than one > year would seem preferable. > > Not sure this is a suitable BLML subject, but anyway I would be > grateful for information about the methods of other countries. The Belgian system allows any team which plays in top- or 1st-division of the teams championship to enter the qualifications. This doesn't disallow a team comprising a weak player to take part, especially as you aren't asked to take part to a fixed number of matches in said division. Our team in Peking was of such type. But the underdog performed rather well for his class, and the team got a reasonable ranking. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without > evidence." > > -- Christopher Hitchens > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 4 19:23:06 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:23:06 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection References: <4EB41DC8.5050606@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <14E94B1D4F234420A8A6B01F425BFC57@MARVLAPTOP> Alain wrote: > The Belgian system allows any team which plays in top- or > 1st-division of the teams championship to enter the > qualifications. > > This doesn't disallow a team comprising a weak player to take > part, especially as you aren't asked to take part to a fixed > number of matches in said division. > > Our team in Peking was of such type. But the underdog performed > rather well for his class, and the team got a reasonable ranking. Thank you, Alain. Here is what got me started on this subject. A player on a USA team in the Bermuda Bowl committed the following "crimes." Responded 4S to a 4-level takeout double of hearts with Axx, despite holding 5-4 in the minors. Down 3. His opposite responded 4NT, getting to 5C making.. With nobody vulnerable, opens 3D with K10xxx and goes for a big number when partner bids 4D with Jxxx, competing. 3NT in the other room went off one. Opens 1D with J10xx Jxx AKJxxx void (he likes to open 10-11 HCP hands). Partner bids 2S over LHO's 2C, 4S (sound raise) by RHO and 5C by him! His partner bids 6S supposing he would find a heart control opposite his Qxx.. Down one. Doesn't cash the setting trick (an ace!) against a major-suit game, allowing it to make. No evidence that declarer could be void. Passes partner's balancing double of 3C holding only KJ10 of clubs, despite having four hearts KJ9x and Kx of spades. Leads low from 10xxx, giving up an overtrick, - 870. 3H goes -50 (4H-2 undoubled in the other room). And others that I saw but won't bother to look up, and no doubt still more that came earlier. These did not happen in a desperation final segment. If any BLMLer has a suggestion for team selection, that would be welcome. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Nov 4 19:38:00 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:38:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: <14E94B1D4F234420A8A6B01F425BFC57@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4EB41DC8.5050606@ulb.ac.be> <14E94B1D4F234420A8A6B01F425BFC57@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4EB43108.8020303@comcast.net> On 11/4/11 2:23 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Alain wrote: > >> The Belgian system allows any team which plays in top- or >> 1st-division of the teams championship to enter the >> qualifications. >> >> This doesn't disallow a team comprising a weak player to take >> part, especially as you aren't asked to take part to a fixed >> number of matches in said division. >> >> Our team in Peking was of such type. But the underdog performed >> rather well for his class, and the team got a reasonable ranking. > Thank you, Alain. Here is what got me started on this subject. A > player on a USA team in the Bermuda Bowl committed the following > "crimes." > > Responded 4S to a 4-level takeout double of hearts with Axx, despite > holding 5-4 in the minors. Down 3. His opposite responded 4NT, > getting to 5C making.. > > With nobody vulnerable, opens 3D with K10xxx and goes for a big > number when partner bids 4D with Jxxx, competing. 3NT in the other > room went off one. > > Opens 1D with J10xx Jxx AKJxxx void (he likes to open 10-11 HCP > hands). Partner bids 2S over LHO's 2C, 4S (sound raise) by RHO and > 5C by him! His partner bids 6S supposing he would find a heart > control opposite his Qxx.. Down one. > > Doesn't cash the setting trick (an ace!) against a major-suit game, > allowing it to make. No evidence that declarer could be void. > > Passes partner's balancing double of 3C holding only KJ10 of clubs, > despite having four hearts KJ9x and Kx of spades. Leads low from > 10xxx, giving up an overtrick, - 870. 3H goes -50 (4H-2 undoubled in > the other room). > > And others that I saw but won't bother to look up, and no doubt > still more that came earlier. These did not happen in a desperation > final segment. > > If any BLMLer has a suggestion for team selection, that would be > welcome. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com Perhaps you should buy your own team! I'm not sure why you want to deprive the pros of an opportunity to earn a living. Or are you suggesting that competing countries be required pay representatives something close to the scale they earn when playing with a sponsor? --bp From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 19:40:16 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:40:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Marvin French wrote: > I have a need to know how other countries beside the USA qualify > teams for international play (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) Our method of team > quals allows a non-expert moneybags to buy and play on a team that > is good enough to qualify but hard-put to win an international > event. > ??? As I recall, the United States has a fairly impressive pedigree in international competition for the last 35 years... Arguments can be made that the US should be performing better than it does. - The US has a very large population which increases the chance that we can field teams with multiple "Helgemos" - The US is allowed to have multiple teams enter the world championships - We're pretty good at stealing great talent from the rest of the world However, I think that its ridiculous to say that we're hard pressed to win an international event... My gut says that either Italy or the US is typically the favorite to win any given Olympiad, Bermuda Bowl, what have you... -- 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/20111104/f27e6a30/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 4 20:41:39 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:41:39 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection References: Message-ID: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> From: "richard willey" > > As I recall, the United States has a fairly impressive pedigree in > international competition for the last 35 years... > > Arguments can be made that the US should be performing better than > it does. > >> However, I think that its ridiculous to say that we're hard >> pressed to win > an international event... > > My gut says that either Italy or the US is typically the favorite > to win > any given Olympiad, Bermuda Bowl, what have you... Well, the Netherlands clearly outbid and outplayed both USA teams to win the recent Bermuda Bowl. We were 2nd and 4th in the Bermuda Bowl, nowhere in the Venice Cup, and 2nd/4th in the d'Orsi Senior Bowl. No winners. I doubt that we will be favorites next time. In the Transnational Teams, Israel Juniors won and Australia was second. Based on population, North America is allotted three teams in the World Bridge Championships, usually allowing two to the USA. Following one of the Olympiads, in which the USA underperformed and both Canada and Mexico did poorly, NA was threatened with losing one of its teams. As a compromise, NA kept its three teams and Europe gained additional teams. We ain't so hot after all. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 21:38:20 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:38:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Marvin French wrote: We were 2nd and 4th in the Bermuda Bowl, nowhere in the Venice Cup, > and 2nd/4th in the d'Orsi Senior Bowl. No winners. I doubt that we > will be favorites next time. > Extrapolating from a single data point is normally considered bad form. Here's a listing of the last 30 odd years of Bermuda Bowl winners Wikipedia provides a nice compact summary of Bermuda Bowl winners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Bowl I'd be interested in knowing exactly when the "rot" set in and the US performance changed so dramatically... More interested in how this correlated with the introduction of a client system. -- 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/20111104/d8d6a364/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 4 21:59:28 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 20:59:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: [Neil Diamond] Money talks. But it don't sing and dance. And it don't walk. [Nigel] Professionalism means that teams-trials will inevitably become the norm, world-wide. Many sponsors are excellent players. Team-rapport is important but you can buy that, like everything else. I prefer pairs-selection with designated events having the almost the same weight as trials because - it widens the selection base and by encourages new talent to come forward and - it enhances the feeling of involvement for ordinary players who are less resentful of having to contribute to international expenses. From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 4 22:02:03 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:02:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: <14E94B1D4F234420A8A6B01F425BFC57@MARVLAPTOP> References: , <4EB41DC8.5050606@ulb.ac.be>, <14E94B1D4F234420A8A6B01F425BFC57@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: > From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:23:06 -0800 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Team Selection > If any BLMLer has a suggestion for team selection, that would be > welcome. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com No byes. Qualify under the same conditions as the main event. Seekers of selection play a large number of events against the top europeans. regards roger pewick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111104/5cb3b8a0/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 4 22:46:08 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:46:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection References: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <8800B9894EDB44A5B07259A92D8F3BEA@MARVLAPTOP> .Richard Willey wrote: > > Here's a listing of the last 30 odd years of Bermuda Bowl winners > > Wikipedia provides a nice compact summary of Bermuda Bowl winners. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Bowl > > I'd be interested in knowing exactly when the "rot" set in and the > US > performance changed so dramatically... > More interested in how this correlated with the introduction of a > client > system. Thank you, Richard. What stands out is that Nickell is not a patsy, despite being a client. Marv Marvin L French From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 4 22:57:50 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:57:50 -0800 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5026BECD6A2545388BA008DCDCC2C029@MARVLAPTOP> > 2018 DEFINITIONS, part two > > Penalty ? (See also "Rectification") ? Penalties are of two kinds: > disciplinary ? those applied for the maintenance of courtesy and > good order (see Law 91), and procedural ? penalties (additional > to any rectification) awarded in the Director's discretion in > cases of procedural irregularities (see Law 90). [M] procedural penalties are for errors in procedure, not for increasing the cost of rectifications. > Rectification ? The remedial provisions to be applied when an > irregularity has come to the Director's attention. [M] Shouldn't that be "infraction"? > > Redouble ? A call over an opponent's double, increasing the > scoring value of fulfilled or defeated contracts (see Laws 19B and > 77). [M] ...increasing the scoring value of the doubled contract, whether fulfilled or defeated... Marv Marvin L French From sater at xs4all.nl Sun Nov 6 12:12:00 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:12:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006201cc9c74$e8642b80$b92c8280$@nl> Well, since we won, our system must be perfect. :-) We don't play for the right to enter, but we have a selection committee type of system. There are about six pairs playing in the selection, and after playing for a long time in various tournaments, training, discussion, etc the captain chooses his three pairs. It seems he decided right. Now in fairness this can only be done because we have sponsors, like Hans Melchers, Max Abram, Herman van Drenkelford who like to invest in bridge without a wish to play in the teams themselves. Compare it to Maria Theresa Lavazza from Italy. There is also the contribution from NOC/NSF (Olympic Committee, Sports Federation) which we earn by ranking high internationally. Hans van Staveren -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Marvin French Sent: vrijdag 4 november 2011 18:05 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Team Selection I have a need to know how other countries beside the USA qualify teams for international play (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) Our method of team quals allows a non-expert moneybags to buy and play on a team that is good enough to qualify but hard-put to win an international event. Thankis to Richard Hills for telling me that nationally Australia uses a "brownie points" system. Various major and minor national events are awarded various points for victories and minor placings. At the end of the "brownie point" year, the players or partnerships who hold the most brownie points negotiate with each other to eventually form circa half-a-dozen teams, which then have a teams playoff for the Bermuda Bowl etc. That seems almost perfect, although brownie points for more than one year would seem preferable. Not sure this is a suitable BLML subject, but anyway I would be grateful for information about the methods of other countries. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 6 18:15:23 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:15:23 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection References: <006201cc9c74$e8642b80$b92c8280$@nl> Message-ID: <2C127332AC974110A6FF185A3D10CD8E@MARVLAPTOP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans van Staveren" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Team Selection > Well, since we won, our system must be perfect. :-) > > We don't play for the right to enter, but we have a selection > committee type > of system. There are about six pairs playing in the selection, and > after > playing for a long time in various tournaments, training, > discussion, etc > the captain chooses his three pairs. It seems he decided right. > > Now in fairness this can only be done because we have sponsors, > like Hans > Melchers, Max Abram, Herman van Drenkelford who like to invest in > bridge > without a wish to play in the teams themselves. Compare it to > Maria Theresa > Lavazza from Italy. > > There is also the contribution from NOC/NSF (Olympic Committee, > Sports > Federation) which we earn by ranking high internationally. > > Hans van Staveren > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: vrijdag 4 november 2011 18:05 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Team Selection > > I have a need to know how other countries beside the USA qualify > teams for international play (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) Our method of > team > quals allows a non-expert moneybags to buy and play on a team > that > is good enough to qualify but hard-put to win an international > event. > > Thankis to Richard Hills for telling me that nationally Australia > uses a "brownie points" system. Various major and minor national > events are awarded various points for victories and minor > placings. > At the end of the "brownie point" year, the players or > partnerships > who hold the most brownie points negotiate with each other to > eventually form circa half-a-dozen teams, which then have a teams > playoff for the Bermuda Bowl etc. > > That seems almost perfect, although brownie points for more than > one > year would seem preferable. > > Not sure this is a suitable BLML subject, but anyway I would be > grateful for information about the methods of other countries. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without > evidence." > > -- Christopher Hitchens > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Nov 6 18:36:02 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:36:02 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection References: <006201cc9c74$e8642b80$b92c8280$@nl> Message-ID: <44771678A2F44539A1F0CFE1E12A2DF4@MARVLAPTOP> Sent a mistake eaerlier, sorry. Thank you Hans, looks like an ideal system. I especially admire the patrons for not sitting in on teams. Reminds me of the Aces, a great 1968 collection of USA players subsidized by the late Ira Corn. At first Ira wanted to play, but graciously bowed out when he could not meet the playing standards of his team. He had taken up duplicate bridge at the late age of 40, too late to become a great player. He insisted on a regime of serious practice and even physical exercises, and the Aces won in the 1970 and 1971 world championships. Nearly all the American teams of the next decade were Aces squads or included former aces. The Netherlands has 62% (88,641) as many members as the USA, but membership numbers are not so important as dedication. Consider Italy, with 29,928. Despite its much larger number (142,592), France just barely holds its own with the other Europeans. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com > Well, since we won, our system must be perfect. :-) > > We don't play for the right to enter, but we have a selection > committee type > of system. There are about six pairs playing in the selection, and > after > playing for a long time in various tournaments, training, > discussion, etc > the captain chooses his three pairs. It seems he decided right. > > Now in fairness this can only be done because we have sponsors, > like Hans > Melchers, Max Abram, Herman van Drenkelford who like to invest in > bridge > without a wish to play in the teams themselves. Compare it to > Maria Theresa > Lavazza from Italy. > > There is also the contribution from NOC/NSF (Olympic Committee, > Sports > Federation) which we earn by ranking high internationally. > > Hans van Staveren > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: vrijdag 4 november 2011 18:05 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Team Selection > > I have a need to know how other countries beside the USA qualify > teams for international play (Bermuda Bowl, etc.) Our method of > team > quals allows a non-expert moneybags to buy and play on a team > that > is good enough to qualify but hard-put to win an international > event. > > Thankis to Richard Hills for telling me that nationally Australia > uses a "brownie points" system. Various major and minor national > events are awarded various points for victories and minor > placings. > At the end of the "brownie point" year, the players or > partnerships > who hold the most brownie points negotiate with each other to > eventually form circa half-a-dozen teams, which then have a teams > playoff for the Bermuda Bowl etc. > > That seems almost perfect, although brownie points for more than > one > year would seem preferable. > > Not sure this is a suitable BLML subject, but anyway I would be > grateful for information about the methods of other countries. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without > evidence." > > -- Christopher Hitchens > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Nov 6 22:50:57 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:50:57 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 26, pattern A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Fred Hoyle, The Black Cloud (1959) -> "This is what I call 'pattern A'." "And what is pattern B?" asked Ann Halsey. "There won't be any pattern B." "Then why bother with the A?" "Preserve me from the obtuseness of women! I can call it pattern A because I want to, can't I?" "Of course, dear. But why do you want to?" Executive Summary With the advent of the 2007 Law 16D, the 2007 Law 26 was not really necessary (and indeed the 2007 Drafting Committee contemplated drastic surgery towards Law 26 before eventually opting for more incremental alterations). I have revised the title and contents of the hypothetical "pattern A" 2018 Law 26 to (in effect) make it a footnote to the hypothetical 2018 Law 16D, but retained the 2018 Law 26 as a 2018 Law to provide clarification to grass-roots Directors. This is analogous to the 2007 Law 75 being (in effect) a footnote to the 2007 Law 40, but the 2007 Law 75 retained as a 2007 Law to provide clarification to grass-roots Directors. 2018 LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE RESTRICTIONS When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and that player chooses a different* final call for that turn, then if that player becomes a defender: A. Call Related to Specific Suit if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit), and 1. if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player, then that defender's partner is not necessarily restricted in any choices amongst logical alternative cards. Law 16D1 applies to declarer, Law 16D2 does not necessarily apply to the defender's partner. 2. if any suit specified in the withdrawn call was not specified by the same player in the legal auction, then that defender's partner is indeed restricted in any choices amongst logical alternative cards. Law 16D1 applies to declarer, Law 16D2 does indeed apply to the defender's partner. B. Other Withdrawn Calls For other withdrawn calls, Law 16D1 applies to declarer and Law 16D2 applies to the defender's partner. C. Adjusted Score after Advantageous Withdrawn Call The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if the Director considers that the withdrawn call has resulted in an advantage for the defending side. * A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different call. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111106/e4336968/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 7 02:28:32 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:28:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EB403CB.1050509@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Robert Frick -> [snip] That's an important part of how I visualize the new laws. The director has to decide what a convention name communicates at his club or in his area. He can consult with other people to make this decision. [snip] Richard Hills -> In _theory_ this proposal would be a bad proposal, because it would require the Director to sometimes rule contrary to actuality. In _practice_ this proposal would be a bad proposal, because Robert Frick has led a sheltered life at his Long Island bridge club, where apparently there is a bland uniformity of partnership understandings. For example, a popular convention amongst Canberra experts and semi-experts is what they call the "Crowhurst" convention. This bears little resemblance to the authentic EBU "Crowhurst" convention. No matter, according to Bob, because the Director can "decide what a convention name communicates at his club". But ... At the Canberra Bridge Club the only consensus is that: 1 banana - (Pass) - 1 grape - (Pass) - 1NT - (Pass) - 2C = the "Crowhurst" convention. There is no consensus on whether responses to "Crowhurst" are up-the-line or major-oriented, nor is there any consensus on which subsequent bids are forcing for one round, forcing to game, non-forcing, or a signoff. So for each and every ruling about Mistaken Call versus Mistaken Explanation the Director of the Canberra Bridge Club carefully investigates the particular understandings of the particular partnership. The Director of the Canberra Bridge does not rule on what the Director believes the partnership _ought_ to be playing, ruling only on what the Director believes the partnership _does_ play. Gilbert and Sullivan, H.M.S. Pinafore (1878), "Ruler of the Queen's Navee!" slightly amended -> Directors all, whoever you may be, If you want to rise to the top of the tree, If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool, Be careful to be guided by this golden rule ? Stick close to your hobby-horse, rule by Law missed, And you all may be Rulers of the Bridge Laws List! -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111107/dc7b3a2b/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 7 02:46:00 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:46:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 41 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Gilbert and Sullivan, H.M.S. Pinafore (1878) -> He is an Englishman! For he himself has said it, And it?s greatly to his credit, That he is an Englishman! For he might have been a Roosian, A French, or Turk, or Proosian, Or perhaps Itali-an! But in spite of all temptations To belong to other nations, He remains an Englishman! Executive Summary New clarifying footnote added to Law 41C. The commonplace infraction of Law 41D is now specifically subject to rectification (correcting a false belief of grass-roots Directors that both sides are responsible for dummy's visibility errors). 2018 LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY A. Face-down Opening Lead After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down*. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender's hand. B. Review of Auction and Questions Before the opening lead is faced, the leader's partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent's call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3). Declarer** and both defenders may, at their own first turn to play a card, require a review of the auction; this right expires when their own first card is played. Both defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at their own*** turn to play. C. Opening Lead Faced Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably****, and dummy's hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn). After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer and both defenders, at their own*** turn to play, are entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. D. Dummy's Hand 1. After the opening lead is faced, dummy's hand is spread on the table in front of dummy, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps (if any) are placed to dummy's right. 2. If dummy errs in obeying 1 above (for example if dummy displays only twelve cards), causing a defender to be consequently damaged, then the defending side is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score. 3. Declarer chooses the cards played both from declarer's own hand and also from dummy's hand. * Regulating Authorities may specify that opening leads be made face up. ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an opening lead out of turn. *** Declarer may enquire either at the turn to play from declarer's own hand, or at the turn to play from dummy's hand. **** Before play begins irrevocably the auction period continues. Therefore, a correction of misinformation under Law 20F4 or Law 20F5 may cause the Director to restart the auction by permitting the player of the non-offending side last to Pass to change to another call. (This may cause the presumed declarer and the presumed dummy to become the actual defenders.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111107/2a1e66ff/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 7 02:59:55 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:59:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for giving me this opportunity to clear things up. First, let's supposed there is some misleading explanation involving the Crowhurst convention at the Canberra bridge club. We have to decide between mistaken explanation and misbid Upon investigation the director discovers that the players have merely agreed to play the Crowhurst convention with no further agreement. That's the interesting case, right? The director, being a competent director, knows that this is one of the ambiguous parts of the Crowhurst convention. One player believes they agreed on up-the-line, the other believes they agreed on major-oriented. With my proposed law, this is a simple ruling -- mistaken explanation, rectified using L20F6 assuming that the correct information is the what the bidder meant by the convention. (I believe it is different now at the Canberra bridge club if they follow Richard's formulation. But that's just Richard's way, I Eric has a different one. Who wants to rule differently? I don't see any problem. Richard? > Robert Frick -> > > [snip] > That's an important part of how I visualize the new laws. The director > has > to decide what a convention name communicates at his club or in his area. > He can consult with other people to make this decision. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > In _theory_ this proposal would be a bad proposal, because it would > require > the Director to sometimes rule contrary to actuality. > > In _practice_ this proposal would be a bad proposal, because Robert Frick > has led a sheltered life at his Long Island bridge club, where apparently > there is a bland uniformity of partnership understandings. For example, a > popular convention amongst Canberra experts and semi-experts is what they > call the "Crowhurst" convention. This bears little resemblance to the > authentic EBU "Crowhurst" convention. No matter, according to Bob, > because > the Director can "decide what a convention name communicates at his > club". > > But ... > > At the Canberra Bridge Club the only consensus is that: > > 1 banana - (Pass) - 1 grape - (Pass) - 1NT - (Pass) - 2C = the > "Crowhurst" > convention. > > There is no consensus on whether responses to "Crowhurst" are up-the-line > or major-oriented, nor is there any consensus on which subsequent bids > are > forcing for one round, forcing to game, non-forcing, or a signoff. > > So for each and every ruling about Mistaken Call versus Mistaken > Explanation the Director of the Canberra Bridge Club carefully > investigates > the particular understandings of the particular partnership. The Director > of the Canberra Bridge does not rule on what the Director believes the > partnership _ought_ to be playing, ruling only on what the Director > believes the partnership _does_ play. > > Gilbert and Sullivan, H.M.S. Pinafore (1878), "Ruler of the Queen's > Navee!" > slightly amended -> > > Directors all, whoever you may be, > If you want to rise to the top of the tree, > If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool, > Be careful to be guided by this golden rule ? > Stick close to your hobby-horse, rule by Law missed, > And you all may be Rulers of the Bridge Laws List! > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 7 03:02:12 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:02:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 26, pattern A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Shouldn't you clarify what you mean by "specified"? I am pretty sure that everyone gives different answers in the hard cases. You are talking about the meaning of illegal bids in most cases. > > > Fred Hoyle, The Black Cloud (1959) -> > > "This is what I call 'pattern A'." > "And what is pattern B?" asked Ann Halsey. > "There won't be any pattern B." > "Then why bother with the A?" > "Preserve me from the obtuseness of women! I can call it pattern A > because > I want to, can't I?" > "Of course, dear. But why do you want to?" > > Executive Summary > > With the advent of the 2007 Law 16D, the 2007 Law 26 was not really > necessary (and indeed the 2007 Drafting Committee contemplated drastic > surgery towards Law 26 before eventually opting for more incremental > alterations). > > I have revised the title and contents of the hypothetical "pattern A" > 2018 > Law 26 to (in effect) make it a footnote to the hypothetical 2018 Law > 16D, > but retained the 2018 Law 26 as a 2018 Law to provide clarification to > grass-roots Directors. This is analogous to the 2007 Law 75 being (in > effect) a footnote to the 2007 Law 40, but the 2007 Law 75 retained as a > 2007 Law to provide clarification to grass-roots Directors. > > 2018 LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE RESTRICTIONS > > When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and that player chooses a > different* final call for that turn, then if that player becomes a > defender: > > A. Call Related to Specific Suit > > if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no > other suit), and > > 1. if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same > player, > then that defender's partner is not necessarily restricted in any choices > amongst logical alternative cards. Law 16D1 applies to declarer, Law 16D2 > does not necessarily apply to the defender's partner. > > 2. if any suit specified in the withdrawn call was not specified by the > same player in the legal auction, then that defender's partner is indeed > restricted in any choices amongst logical alternative cards. Law 16D1 > applies to declarer, Law 16D2 does indeed apply to the defender's > partner. > > B. Other Withdrawn Calls > > For other withdrawn calls, Law 16D1 applies to declarer and Law 16D2 > applies to the defender's partner. > > C. Adjusted Score after Advantageous Withdrawn Call > > The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if the Director > considers that the withdrawn call has resulted in an advantage for the > defending side. > > * A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a > different > call. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 7 03:08:37 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:08:37 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 41 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 20:46:00 -0500, wrote: > > Gilbert and Sullivan, H.M.S. Pinafore (1878) -> > > He is an Englishman! > For he himself has said it, > And it?s greatly to his credit, > That he is an Englishman! > For he might have been a Roosian, > A French, or Turk, or Proosian, > Or perhaps Itali-an! > But in spite of all temptations > To belong to other nations, > He remains an Englishman! > > Executive Summary > > New clarifying footnote added to Law 41C. > > The commonplace infraction of Law 41D is now specifically subject to > rectification (correcting a false belief of grass-roots Directors that > both > sides are responsible for dummy's visibility errors). > > 2018 LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY > > A. Face-down Opening Lead > > After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in > rotation, the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead > face down*. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of > the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card > must > be returned to the defender's hand. > > B. Review of Auction and Questions > > Before the opening lead is faced, the leader's partner and the presumed > declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the > auction, or request explanation of an opponent's call (see Law 20F2 and > 20F3). Declarer** and both defenders may, at their own first turn to > play a > card, require a review of the auction; this right expires when their own > first card is played. Both defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer > retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each > at their own*** turn to play. > > C. Opening Lead Faced > > Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play > period begins irrevocably****, and dummy's hand is spread (but see Law > 54A > for a faced opening lead out of turn). After it is too late to have > previous calls restated (see B), declarer and both defenders, at their > own*** turn to play, are entitled to be informed as to what the contract > is > and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. > > D. Dummy's Hand > > 1. After the opening lead is faced, dummy's hand is spread on the table > in > front of dummy, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank > with > lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns pointing lengthwise > towards declarer. Trumps (if any) are placed to dummy's right. > > 2. If dummy errs in obeying 1 above (for example if dummy displays only > twelve cards), causing a defender to be consequently damaged, then the > defending side is entitled to rectification through the award of an > adjusted score. Good. I think this should apply even if dummy places all 13 correctly but later hides a card. (And put another way, if there is a hidden card in dummy, I do not as director to be put in the place of deciding when that problem occurred.) > > 3. Declarer chooses the cards played both from declarer's own hand and > also > from dummy's hand. > > * Regulating Authorities may specify that opening leads be made face up. > ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an > opening > lead out of turn. > *** Declarer may enquire either at the turn to play from declarer's own > hand, or at the turn to play from dummy's hand. > **** Before play begins irrevocably the auction period continues. > Therefore, a correction of misinformation under Law 20F4 or Law 20F5 may > cause the Director to restart the auction by permitting the player of the > non-offending side last to Pass to change to another call. (This may > cause > the presumed declarer and the presumed dummy to become the actual > defenders.) > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Mon Nov 7 04:57:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:57:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes 10th October 2008, page 5 -> LAW 75C The phrase "they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S hands" first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as now by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It was entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that the partnership agreement must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the 1987 law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving the statements from a footnote into the body of the Law. Robert Frick -> [snip] One player believes they agreed on up-the-line, the other believes they agreed on major-oriented. With my proposed law, this is a simple ruling -- mistaken explanation, rectified using L20F6 assuming that the correct information is what the bidder meant by the convention. [snip] Richard Hills -> Under the current 2007 Lawbook, this is a complex ruling. Either no infraction and misbid (the explaining partner's belief was correct) or an infraction and misexplanation (the non-explaining partner's belief was correct) or an infraction and misexplanation (both partners' beliefs were incorrect, that is the explanation should have been, "We have zero partnership understanding."). But Bob may not realise how fundamentally his proposed "simple" addition will change the nature of the Lawbook, upending a principle in place since 1975. He is arguing that a _mutual_ partnership understanding could be _unilaterally_ created by one partner (in effect leading to the same outcome as a long-standing Herman De Wael idea, that a player should be required by Law to describe partner's cards, no longer required by Law to describe the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding). Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111107/f97a3c53/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 7 06:21:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 16:21:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EB1053D.40309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner -> [snip] I play that 1NT-3C-Dbl is for penalties, but 1NT-3D-Dbl is for takeout. How are they to guess that? (Yes, there is a reason. Most pairs play that 2C is artificial and will bid 3C when unsafe; and 3D is free as a takeout bid.) [snip] Richard Hills -> I play the lead of a deuce against a suit contract as showing an odd number of cards in that suit. I play the lead of a deuce against a notrump contract as showing a desire for pard to continue that suit. How are they to guess that? Easy. When playing against non-experts who have not played against me before, I am careful to pre-Alert at the start of the round or match that not only do Ali-Hills play unusual defensive signals, but also those unusual signals vary between notrump contracts and suit contracts. I furthermore advise the non-expert opponents to seek more details if and when one of them becomes declarer. What's the problem? ABF Alert Regulation, clause 3.1.3 -> Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this stage. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111107/69bf4952/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Nov 7 09:45:05 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:45:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> References: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4EB79A91.2050903@gmail.com> On 04/11/2011 20:41, Marvin French wrote: > We ain't so hot after all. Since 1995, the US finished either first or second in the Bermuda Bowl, which is far better than any other country. If one consistently fields teams that perform this well, one must be doing something right in the selection procedure. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 7 12:11:55 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:11:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection In-Reply-To: <14E94B1D4F234420A8A6B01F425BFC57@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4EB41DC8.5050606@ulb.ac.be> <14E94B1D4F234420A8A6B01F425BFC57@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4EB7BCFB.7060608@ulb.ac.be> Le 4/11/2011 19:23, Marvin French a ?crit : > Alain wrote: > >> The Belgian system allows any team which plays in top- or >> 1st-division of the teams championship to enter the >> qualifications. >> >> This doesn't disallow a team comprising a weak player to take >> part, especially as you aren't asked to take part to a fixed >> number of matches in said division. >> >> Our team in Peking was of such type. But the underdog performed >> rather well for his class, and the team got a reasonable ranking. > Thank you, Alain. Here is what got me started on this subject. A > player on a USA team in the Bermuda Bowl committed the following > "crimes." > > Responded 4S to a 4-level takeout double of hearts with Axx, despite > holding 5-4 in the minors. Down 3. His opposite responded 4NT, > getting to 5C making.. > > With nobody vulnerable, opens 3D with K10xxx and goes for a big > number when partner bids 4D with Jxxx, competing. 3NT in the other > room went off one. Done it before. Partner just has to know that it can happen and not raise with Jxxx. matter of partnership agreement, not level. > > Opens 1D with J10xx Jxx AKJxxx void (he likes to open 10-11 HCP > hands). Partner bids 2S over LHO's 2C, 4S (sound raise) by RHO and > 5C by him! His partner bids 6S supposing he would find a heart > control opposite his Qxx.. Down one. Partner is wrong. 5C describes a control in clubs, not in hearts. Whether the hand is worth it is another matter. > > Doesn't cash the setting trick (an ace!) against a major-suit game, > allowing it to make. No evidence that declarer could be void. Can you swear it that it never happened to you ? > > Passes partner's balancing double of 3C holding only KJ10 of clubs, > despite having four hearts KJ9x and Kx of spades. Leads low from > 10xxx, giving up an overtrick, - 870. 3H goes -50 (4H-2 undoubled in > the other room). Same question. (of course, it shouldn't happen in teams, but ...) > > And others that I saw but won't bother to look up, and no doubt > still more that came earlier. These did not happen in a desperation > final segment. > > If any BLMLer has a suggestion for team selection, that would be > welcome. > AG : my suggestion is that, if the team can qualify in a serious qualification tournament despite several crimes, then they should be allowed to play in the championship. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 7 14:51:29 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:51:29 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:57:52 -0500, wrote: > > WBF Laws Committee minutes 10th October 2008, page 5 -> > > LAW 75C > > The phrase "they have no claim to an accurate description of the N-S > hands" > first appeared in the 1975 laws of the game. It was accompanied then as > now > by the injunction forbidding the Director to alter the table result. It > was > entered primarily to establish beyond doubt that the partnership > agreement > must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry and that the > explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as > to the contents of either hand. It was continued in those terms in the > 1987 > law book, while for 2007 NBOs were invited to say whether the example or > the wording should be updated. Among replies received there was a general > consensus for retaining them as they had been previously, whilst moving > the > statements from a footnote into the body of the Law. > > Robert Frick -> > > [snip] > One player believes they agreed on up-the-line, the other believes they > agreed on major-oriented. > > With my proposed law, this is a simple ruling -- mistaken explanation, > rectified using L20F6 assuming that the correct information is what the > bidder meant by the convention. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > Under the current 2007 Lawbook, this is a complex ruling. Either no > infraction and misbid (the explaining partner's belief was correct) or an > infraction and misexplanation (the non-explaining partner's belief was > correct) or an infraction and misexplanation (both partners' beliefs were > incorrect, that is the explanation should have been, "We have zero > partnership understanding."). > > But Bob may not realise how fundamentally his proposed "simple" addition > will change the nature of the Lawbook, upending a principle in place > since > 1975. He is arguing that a _mutual_ partnership understanding could be > _unilaterally_ created by one partner (in effect leading to the same > outcome as a long-standing Herman De Wael idea, that a player should be > required by Law to describe partner's cards, no longer required by Law to > describe the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding). > > Kind regards, > > Richard Hills Let's see. (1) This is a simple and common situation (2) I am suggesting a simple rule to easily lead to rulings (3) These rulings probably correspond to how directors rule. (4) As far as I can see, this rule would work well. I am extraordinarily happy to hear potential problems if anyone can find them. You don't suggest any. You (1) claim that under the current lawbook, this is a complex ruling. I agree completely. The lawbook should make the easy rulings easy and the difficult rulings possible. (2) Your ruling depends on whether the bid or explanation was "correct". But you have all of the facts of the case and still can't decide. That's because the laws don't address this very common situation. (3) A consideration of your position is very complex. (3a) "We have zero partnership agreement" is not merely a strange way to talk, it is very difficult to give meaning to. Shall I count angels? The players agree on RKCB but never talk about what 5H actually shows. They have no agreement? No one would say that. Well, the laws are based on mutual understanding, and if they have the same understanding, then we can call that their understanding. But what if they have different understand? Now you are saying that they have zero agreement, BUT you have abandoned the mutual understanding notion. For neither of them (in the above example) had that understanding. (This doe snot address the hard cases.) (3b) It is rare, as far as I know, to adjust on the assumption that "zero agreement" was the proper explanation. Actually, I never said that the bid creates a partnership understanding. I merely talked about how to rule, which is not much different from L75 and it's injunction about burden of proof. The claim about overturning a basic principle of the laws is debatable. The reality is, the laws don't even try to address this situation and the current formulation can't handle it. This is a simple change that is remarkably consistent with the current laws. Thanks for answering. I hope I have cleared everything up. From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 7 15:49:07 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:49:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > (2) Your ruling depends on whether the bid or explanation was "correct". > But you have all of the facts of the case and still can't decide. That's because > the laws don't address this very common situation. [Sven Pran] Isn't Law 21B1(b): " The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" very clear? If the Director cannot decide he shall rule misinformation. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 7 17:13:21 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:13:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:49:07 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> (2) Your ruling depends on whether the bid or explanation was "correct". >> But you have all of the facts of the case and still can't decide. That's > because >> the laws don't address this very common situation. > > [Sven Pran] > Isn't Law 21B1(b): " The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation > rather > than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" very > clear? > If the Director cannot decide he shall rule misinformation. Not simple. Situation #1. The players agree to play RKCB. That is their full conversation. In that convention, it is well-accepted that 5S means two controls and the queen of trump. A player agrees to this convention, even though he did not fully understand it. So he describes 5S as just two controls. Mistaken explanation or misbid? Example #2. Same thing, except this time the explainer knows the convention and describes 5S as showing 2 controls and the queen of trumps. The 5S bidder is the one who didn't understand the convention, and he does not have the queen of trumps. Mistaken explanation or misbid? With my formulation, the ruling would be mistaken explanation for #1 and misbid for #2. There is a basic core of what people mean when they agree to RKCB. And at least here, it includes that 5S shows two controls and the queen of trumps (or whatever the presumed suit is). The lawbook, I think, focuses on mutual understanding. For example, L40 is headed "Partnership Understanding." So the situations are identical and there is no way to get different rulings for the two situations. Second Problem If you rule mistaken explanation in #1, then you (director) have to decide what the correct explanation was (in order to consider what might have happened if the opponents had been given the correct explanation). I am guessing directors will say that the correct explanation was per the convention, that 5S shows two controls and the queen of the presumed trump suit. Richard has said before, and I think just said again, that the correct explanation is "zero agreement". That seems to me to be a fair reading of the laws. Just not very practical and probably not the simple ruling you envisioned. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 7 17:25:59 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:25:59 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Team Selection References: <5F78E8A2ED2A44CBA8422FA36BE38BDB@MARVLAPTOP> <4EB79A91.2050903@gmail.com> Message-ID: <447795FE907E41209FC2DCF6D7BB50A9@MARVLAPTOP> Henk wrote: > > Since 1995, the US finished either first or second in the Bermuda > Bowl, > which is far better than any other country. If one consistently > fields > teams that perform this well, one must be doing something right in > the > selection procedure. That only shows that a loss should be investigated. One bad apple can spoil the barrel. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 7 18:09:28 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:09:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> Message-ID: <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:49:07 -0500, Sven Pran > wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > > [...] > >> (2) Your ruling depends on whether the bid or explanation was "correct". > >> But you have all of the facts of the case and still can't decide. > >> That's > > because > >> the laws don't address this very common situation. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Isn't Law 21B1(b): " The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation > > rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" > > very clear? > > If the Director cannot decide he shall rule misinformation. > > Not simple. > > Situation #1. The players agree to play RKCB. That is their full conversation. In > that convention, it is well-accepted that 5S means two controls and the > queen of trump. A player agrees to this convention, even though he did not > fully understand it. So he describes 5S as just two controls. Mistaken > explanation or misbid? > > Example #2. Same thing, except this time the explainer knows the > convention and describes 5S as showing 2 controls and the queen of trumps. > The 5S bidder is the one who didn't understand the convention, and he does > not have the queen of trumps. Mistaken explanation or misbid? > > With my formulation, the ruling would be mistaken explanation for #1 and > misbid for #2. There is a basic core of what people mean when they agree to > RKCB. And at least here, it includes that 5S shows two controls and the queen > of trumps (or whatever the presumed suit is). > > The lawbook, I think, focuses on mutual understanding. For example, L40 is > headed "Partnership Understanding." So the situations are identical and > there is no way to get different rulings for the two situations. > > > Second Problem > If you rule mistaken explanation in #1, then you (director) have to decide > what the correct explanation was (in order to consider what might have > happened if the opponents had been given the correct explanation). I am > guessing directors will say that the correct explanation was per the > convention, that 5S shows two controls and the queen of the presumed > trump suit. Richard has said before, and I think just said again, that the > correct explanation is "zero agreement". That seems to me to be a fair > reading of the laws. Just not very practical and probably not the simple ruling > you envisioned. [Sven Pran] Honestly I don't understand you. I don't care about the details in your examples #1 and #2. If as Director I am satisfied that the given explanation was correct and that the call was mistaken I so rule. If not I rule mistaken explanation and this is precisely what Law 21B1(b) says. If you mix in the question of mutual understanding here you are dangerously close to end up with what should be ruled as CPU, and then the question of misbid or misinformation is no longer relevant. (Note that a ruling of mistaken explanation is more favourable to opponents than a ruling of mistaken call.) From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Nov 7 21:40:18 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:40:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> On 11/7/11 12:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:49:07 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>>> Robert Frick >>> [...] >>>> (2) Your ruling depends on whether the bid or explanation was > "correct". >>>> But you have all of the facts of the case and still can't decide. >>>> That's >>> because >>>> the laws don't address this very common situation. >>> [Sven Pran] >>> Isn't Law 21B1(b): " The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation >>> rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" >>> very clear? >>> If the Director cannot decide he shall rule misinformation. >> Not simple. >> >> Situation #1. The players agree to play RKCB. That is their full > conversation. In >> that convention, it is well-accepted that 5S means two controls and the >> queen of trump. A player agrees to this convention, even though he did not >> fully understand it. So he describes 5S as just two controls. Mistaken >> explanation or misbid? >> >> Example #2. Same thing, except this time the explainer knows the >> convention and describes 5S as showing 2 controls and the queen of trumps. >> The 5S bidder is the one who didn't understand the convention, and he does >> not have the queen of trumps. Mistaken explanation or misbid? >> >> With my formulation, the ruling would be mistaken explanation for #1 and >> misbid for #2. There is a basic core of what people mean when they agree > to >> RKCB. And at least here, it includes that 5S shows two controls and the > queen >> of trumps (or whatever the presumed suit is). >> >> The lawbook, I think, focuses on mutual understanding. For example, L40 is >> headed "Partnership Understanding." So the situations are identical and >> there is no way to get different rulings for the two situations. >> >> >> Second Problem >> If you rule mistaken explanation in #1, then you (director) have to decide >> what the correct explanation was (in order to consider what might have >> happened if the opponents had been given the correct explanation). I am >> guessing directors will say that the correct explanation was per the >> convention, that 5S shows two controls and the queen of the presumed >> trump suit. Richard has said before, and I think just said again, that the >> correct explanation is "zero agreement". That seems to me to be a fair >> reading of the laws. Just not very practical and probably not the simple > ruling >> you envisioned. > [Sven Pran] Honestly I don't understand you. > > I don't care about the details in your examples #1 and #2. > > If as Director I am satisfied that the given explanation was correct and > that the call was mistaken I so rule. If not I rule mistaken explanation and > this is precisely what Law 21B1(b) says. I sense that the problem here lies with the work "correct." Does not correct imply correct with respect to some framework? Ideally, that framework would be the partnership's mutual understanding or stated agreement. But if there is no mutual understanding, what then? Do I understand you to say you would always rule mistaken explanation in that case? So...insufficient evidence of a mutual understanding automatically implies mistaken explanation? I can live with that. There can't be a misbid if there is no mutual understanding, can there? I guess this means that if, for example, they have RKCB checked on their system card (evidence of understanding), the director is to presume that any explanation that does not accurately describe the bidder's holding is a mistaken explanation. Or would you accept the bidder's claim that he pulled the wrong card from the bidding box? Perhaps the offending side's infraction here is the lies in the checking of the RKCB box when no true agreement (with understanding) exists...and that infraction deserves some punishment if the other side becomes disadvantaged. If this is to be the case, it would help if the laws were explicit on this point. > If you mix in the question of mutual understanding here you are dangerously > close to end up with what should be ruled as CPU, and then the question of > misbid or misinformation is no longer relevant. > > (Note that a ruling of mistaken explanation is more favourable to opponents > than a ruling of mistaken call.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 7 22:16:23 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:16:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> Message-ID: <003401cc9d92$8118bd50$834a37f0$@online.no> > Robert Park > On 11/7/11 12:09 PM, Sven Pran wrote: [...] > >>> [Sven Pran] > >>> Isn't Law 21B1(b): " The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation > >>> rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" > >>> very clear? [...] > > If as Director I am satisfied that the given explanation was correct > > and that the call was mistaken I so rule. If not I rule mistaken > > explanation and this is precisely what Law 21B1(b) says. > > I sense that the problem here lies with the work "correct." Does not correct > imply correct with respect to some framework? Ideally, that framework > would be the partnership's mutual understanding or stated agreement. But if > there is no mutual understanding, what then? Do I understand you to say > you would always rule mistaken explanation in that case? [Sven Pran] In princle: YES > So...insufficient evidence of a mutual understanding automatically implies > mistaken explanation? I can live with that. There can't be a misbid if there is > no mutual understanding, can there? [Sven Pran] NO > > I guess this means that if, for example, they have RKCB checked on their > system card (evidence of understanding), the director is to presume that any > explanation that does not accurately describe the bidder's holding is a > mistaken explanation. Or would you accept the bidder's claim that he pulled > the wrong card from the bidding box? [Sven Pran] No. If there is a discrepancy between the explanation and the caller's holding the Director must investigate if the explanation appears to be a correct disclosure of partnership understanding and the caller's partner appears to having been (at least) as misled by the call as his opponents' have been misled by the explanation. In that case the Director should rule misbid. (The Director must of course also consider the possibility that the player (accidentally) has simply pulled the wrong card from the bidding box if the player so claims.) > > Perhaps the offending side's infraction here is the lies in the checking of the > RKCB box when no true agreement (with understanding) exists...and that > infraction deserves some punishment if the other side becomes > disadvantaged. If this is to be the case, it would help if the laws were explicit > on this point. [Sven Pran] Law 21 is IMHO explicit on this point. If opponents have not received full disclosure then they have been misinformed. And I am for instance extremely reluctant to accept "not discussed" or " no agreement" as proper disclosure if there is the least indication that a player may have understood a call the way it was intended while explaining it differently. If a partnership honestly has no agreement on a particular convention but still uses it then they are (of course) responsible for any damage inflected on opponents by insufficient disclosure. Successful understanding in such cases is IMO very close to CPU (Concealed Partnership Understanding) and dealt with under Law 40C1. From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Nov 7 22:40:47 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:40:47 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003401cc9d92$8118bd50$834a37f0$@online.no> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> <003401cc9d92$8118bd50$834a37f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EB8505F.9060702@comcast.net> On 11/7/11 4:16 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > [Sven Pran] No. If there is a discrepancy between the explanation and the > caller's holding the Director must investigate if the explanation appears to > be a correct disclosure of partnership understanding and the caller's > partner appears to having been (at least) as misled by the call as his > opponents' have been misled by the explanation. In that case the Director > should rule misbid. I like that criterion, but I sense it is not yet fully articulated. What if, for instance, the bidder shows 2 keycards + the trump queen, but explainer has the trump queen in his hand. He is not misled, so what is he to say, and how would you rule if he did not say it? From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 7 23:02:08 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:02:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EB8505F.9060702@comcast.net> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> <003401cc9d92$8118bd50$834a37f0$@online.no> <4EB8505F.9060702@comcast.net> Message-ID: <003601cc9d98$e5157400$af405c00$@online.no> > Robert Park > On 11/7/11 4:16 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > [Sven Pran] No. If there is a discrepancy between the explanation and > > the caller's holding the Director must investigate if the explanation > > appears to be a correct disclosure of partnership understanding and > > the caller's partner appears to having been (at least) as misled by > > the call as his opponents' have been misled by the explanation. In > > that case the Director should rule misbid. > > I like that criterion, but I sense it is not yet fully articulated. What if, for > instance, the bidder shows 2 keycards + the trump queen, but explainer has > the trump queen in his hand. He is not misled, so what is he to say, and how > would you rule if he did not say it? [Sven Pran] This and equivalent questions have been raised several times and the answer is crystal clear: When explaining the auction a player must disclose the actual partnership understanding also in situations where he can see from his own cards that partner must have misbid. He must not in any way indicate that he can tell (from his own cards) that partner has deviated from their understanding so that partner becomes aware of his mistake. This can of course lead to problems for that partnership if doubt is raised about what is the actual understanding because of lack of evidence, but the player is not allowed to modify his explanation to match what he believes is partner's hand in order to avoid such problems. The fact that partner must have misbid is of course authorized information to him because it is available from his own card holding. From bpark56 at comcast.net Mon Nov 7 23:30:26 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:30:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003601cc9d98$e5157400$af405c00$@online.no> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> <003401cc9d92$8118bd50$834a37f0$@online.no> <4EB8505F.9060702@comcast.net> <003601cc9d98$e5157400$af405c00$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EB85C02.6090801@comcast.net> On 11/7/11 5:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Park >> On 11/7/11 4:16 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> [Sven Pran] No. If there is a discrepancy between the explanation and >>> the caller's holding the Director must investigate if the explanation >>> appears to be a correct disclosure of partnership understanding and >>> the caller's partner appears to having been (at least) as misled by >>> the call as his opponents' have been misled by the explanation. In >>> that case the Director should rule misbid. >> I like that criterion, but I sense it is not yet fully articulated. What > if, for >> instance, the bidder shows 2 keycards + the trump queen, but explainer has >> the trump queen in his hand. He is not misled, so what is he to say, and > how >> would you rule if he did not say it? > [Sven Pran] This and equivalent questions have been raised several times and > the answer is crystal clear: > > When explaining the auction a player must disclose the actual partnership > understanding also in situations where he can see from his own cards that > partner must have misbid. He must not in any way indicate that he can tell > (from his own cards) that partner has deviated from their understanding so > that partner becomes aware of his mistake. > > This can of course lead to problems for that partnership if doubt is raised > about what is the actual understanding because of lack of evidence, but the > player is not allowed to modify his explanation to match what he believes is > partner's hand in order to avoid such problems. The fact that partner must > have misbid is of course authorized information to him because it is > available from his own card holding. So do you not then need to delete or reword the "and the caller's partner appears to having been (at least) as misled by the call as his opponents' have been misled by the explanation" clause in your criterion above? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 7 23:34:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:34:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 72 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Park, parallel "proposed..." thread -> [snip] What if, for instance, the bidder shows 2 keycards + the trump queen, but explainer has the trump queen in his hand. He is not misled, so what is he to say, and how would you rule if he did not say it? Executive Summary Footnote to Law 72A in accordance with 2010 WBF Laws Committee minutes. Law 72B1 rewritten in accordance with 2009 WBF Laws Committee minutes to change "infringe" to "infraction". Also additional words added for Secretary Birds and grass-roots Directors to emphasise the importance of "must not". Law 72B2 rewritten for clarity, plus an entirely legal alternative option is now explicitly included in Law 72B2 and its footnote. New Law 72B3(d), inspired by the active ethics of Canberra expert (and former blmler) Mark Abraham. Many players, Directors and blmlers are confused on the appropriate resolution of MI and/or creation of UI. (And some blmlers, for example Herman De Wael and his De Wael School, are not confused but are iconoclasts.) The new Law 72C clarifies the traditional and orthodox WBF Laws Committee approach to MI and/or creation of UI in accordance with the 2008 WBF Laws Committee minutes. 2018 LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. Observance of Laws Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score* than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws. B. Infraction of Law 1. A player must not commit an intentional infraction of any law (including this Law 72), whether or not that player is willing to accept a consequent rectification. Any and all intentional infractions could well receive Law 91 Disciplinary Penalties. 2. It is usually appropriate for a player to avoid drawing attention to an infraction of law committed by that player's own side, but exceptions are listed in Law 20F (a mistaken explanation), Law 62A (a non-established revoke) and Law 79A2 (an unearned trick). However, it is equally appropriate for a player to indeed draw attention to an infraction of law committed by that player's own side at any legal time** of the player's own choosing. 3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction. For example, if that player has committed an established revoke, that player may not choose to: (a) commit a second revoke, or (b) conceal a card involved in a revoke, or (c) mix the cards prematurely, or (d) return the cards face down to the board after an opponent's accepted claim. C. Explanations and Creation of Unauthorized Information 1. The partnership understanding must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry. That correct*** explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. It is not relevant that the explainer knows or suspects that a correct*** explanation may create unauthorized information which will inhibit partner's selection from amongst logical alternatives. 2. There is no infraction when a correct*** explanation discloses that partner's prior explanation was mistaken. The words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" (in Law 20F5(a)) do not refer to compliance with the overriding requirement of the laws always to respond to enquiries under Law 20F with correct*** explanations of the partnership understandings. * The Regulating Authority decides whether the unit quantity for "higher score" is a board or a session or the entire tournament. But if a player has demonstrable bridge reason to believe that that player's side is ahead in an imps knockout match, that player is entitled to take any actions which have the aim of minimising imp swings. ** For example, it is entirely appropriate for a player to defer drawing any attention to that player's established revoke until Law 64C (Director Responsible for Equity) is the sole remaining applicable revoke law. *** An accurate explanation of the partnership understanding is correct even if describing something that the explainer knows cannot be. For example, if the partnership understanding is that the partner holds the trump queen, but the explainer actually holds the trump queen, the explainer must still explain that the partner holds the trump queen. See Law 75C. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111107/9060417c/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Nov 8 00:41:16 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:41:16 +0100 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EB85C02.6090801@comcast.net> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> <003401cc9d92$8118bd50$834a37f0$@online.no> <4EB8505F.9060702@comcast.net> <003601cc9d98$e5157400$af405c00$@online.no> <4EB85C02.6090801@comcast.net> Message-ID: <004101cc9da6$bed8c130$3c8a4390$@online.no> > Robert Park > On 11/7/11 5:02 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Robert Park > >> On 11/7/11 4:16 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> > >>> [Sven Pran] No. If there is a discrepancy between the explanation > >>> and the caller's holding the Director must investigate if the > >>> explanation appears to be a correct disclosure of partnership > >>> understanding and the caller's partner appears to having been (at > >>> least) as misled by the call as his opponents' have been misled by > >>> the explanation. In that case the Director should rule misbid. > >> I like that criterion, but I sense it is not yet fully articulated. > >> What > > if, for > >> instance, the bidder shows 2 keycards + the trump queen, but > >> explainer has the trump queen in his hand. He is not misled, so what > >> is he to say, and > > how > >> would you rule if he did not say it? > > [Sven Pran] This and equivalent questions have been raised several > > times and the answer is crystal clear: > > > > When explaining the auction a player must disclose the actual > > partnership understanding also in situations where he can see from his > > own cards that partner must have misbid. He must not in any way > > indicate that he can tell (from his own cards) that partner has > > deviated from their understanding so that partner becomes aware of his > mistake. > > > > This can of course lead to problems for that partnership if doubt is > > raised about what is the actual understanding because of lack of > > evidence, but the player is not allowed to modify his explanation to > > match what he believes is partner's hand in order to avoid such > > problems. The fact that partner must have misbid is of course > > authorized information to him because it is available from his own card > holding. > > > > So do you not then need to delete or reword the "and the caller's partner > appears to having been (at least) as misled by the call as his opponents' have > been misled by the explanation" clause in your criterion above? [Sven Pran] NO! If my partner makes a call not in accordance with our understanding then I am as misled by that call as well as my opponents may feel misled by my correct disclosure. I can tell from my own hand that partner must have misbid, but I cannot tell how, and because I know this from my own holding (information that is AI to me) I may legally use this information. However, my explanation must still be according to our understanding and nothing else. A frequent question in older days was also connected with Blackwood: Partner answers 5S showing three out of four Aces but you hold 2. The disclosure shall be that partner has shown three aces. You know that this is wrong but you cannot tell if he has counted a void as an Ace, simply miscounted or suddenly thought that 5S shows (for instance two aces. He may have confused standard Blackwood with Italian Blacwood where 5H shows 2 "similar" Aces (two red, two black, two major or two minor) and 2S shows any two Aces that do not fit the 5H response. From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Nov 8 01:42:15 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:42:15 -0500 Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004101cc9da6$bed8c130$3c8a4390$@online.no> References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> <001901cc9d70$029503c0$07bf0b40$@online.no> <4EB84232.2030209@comcast.net> <003401cc9d92$8118bd50$834a37f0$@online.no> <4EB8505F.9060702@comcast.net> <003601cc9d98$e5157400$af405c00$@online.no> <4EB85C02.6090801@comcast.net> <004101cc9da6$bed8c130$3c8a4390$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EB87AE7.7050806@comcast.net> On 11/7/11 6:41 PM, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> Robert Park >> >> >> >> So do you not then need to delete or reword the "and the caller's partner >> appears to having been (at least) as misled by the call as his opponents' > have >> been misled by the explanation" clause in your criterion above? > [Sven Pran] NO! > > If my partner makes a call not in accordance with our understanding then I > am as misled by that call as well as my opponents may feel misled by my > correct disclosure. > I can tell from my own hand that partner must have misbid, but I cannot tell > how, and because I know this from my own holding (information that is AI to > me) I may legally use this information. However, my explanation must still > be according to our understanding and nothing else. > > A frequent question in older days was also connected with Blackwood: Partner > answers 5S showing three out of four Aces but you hold 2. > The disclosure shall be that partner has shown three aces. You know that > this is wrong but you cannot tell if he has counted a void as an Ace, simply > miscounted or suddenly thought that 5S shows (for instance two aces. He may > have confused standard Blackwood with Italian Blacwood where 5H shows 2 > "similar" Aces (two red, two black, two major or two minor) and 2S shows any > two Aces that do not fit the 5H response. > Sounds like a good answer. Thanks. --bp From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 8 06:50:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:50:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5026BECD6A2545388BA008DCDCC2C029@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2007 Definition of "Penalty" (zero changes to this particular Definition in the hypothetical 2018 Definitions) -> Penalty ? (See also "Rectification") ? Penalties are of two kinds: disciplinary ? those applied for the maintenance of courtesy and good order (see Law 91), and procedural ? penalties (additional to any rectification) awarded in the Director's discretion in cases of procedural irregularities (see Law 90). Marvin French -> [M] procedural penalties are for errors in procedure, not for increasing the cost of rectifications. Richard Hills -> Given that the 2007 Drafting Committee's definition of Logical Alternative encompassed alternatives that were not necessarily logical, the 2007 Drafting Committee was equally entitled to create a definition for Procedural Penalty which was not restricted to penalising errors in procedure. Humpty Dumpty -> When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111108/eda79583/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 8 15:11:41 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:11:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] in memoriam Message-ID: <4EB9389D.2010301@ulb.ac.be> I have the sad duty to report the passing away of Andr? Crucq, aged 78. A well-known figure on the Belgian bridge scene, Andr? was a regular TD and occasional AC member. He was known for his insistence on active ethics, his cool approach to human problems at the table, a straightforward -and successful- approach to bidding (calling himself "the last remaining natural bidder"), his inscrutability (I remember him scoring two tricks, as declarer, with Q8 facing 64) and the strange sigh he released when he decided which card to play. But, above all, he was of a rare species : a real partner. Many will miss him. Alain From blml at arcor.de Tue Nov 8 18:57:11 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:57:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] proposed addition: when partnerships agree on a convention [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701cc9d5c$67557e70$36007b50$@online.no> Message-ID: <1849195975.1003511.1320775031865.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail08.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:49:07 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > > [...] > >> (2) Your ruling depends on whether the bid or explanation was "correct". > >> But you have all of the facts of the case and still can't decide. That's > > because > >> the laws don't address this very common situation. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Isn't Law 21B1(b): " The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation > > rather > > than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" very > > clear? > > If the Director cannot decide he shall rule misinformation. > > Not simple. > > Situation #1. The players agree to play RKCB. That is their full > conversation. In that convention, it is well-accepted that 5S means two > controls and the queen of trump. A player agrees to this convention, even > though he did not fully understand it. So he describes 5S as just two > controls. Mistaken explanation or misbid? > > Example #2. Same thing, except this time the explainer knows the > convention and describes 5S as showing 2 controls and the queen of trumps. > The 5S bidder is the one who didn't understand the convention, and he does > not have the queen of trumps. Mistaken explanation or misbid? Insufficient information to answer that. Assume you have Kxxxxxx,AKx,xx,x. You open 1S, partner bids 4NT, RKCB. Do you now bid 5H or 5S? You have, of course, not discussed this situation. I bid 5S even though I do not have the SQ. And, no, I did not forget RKCB. You cannot sort this out with a simply catch-all rule. Thomas From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 8 19:04:19 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:04:19 -0800 Subject: [BLML] in memoriam References: <4EB9389D.2010301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <86FCE802C3B2476C9805D8322BFBAE5C@MARVLAPTOP> Alain wrote: >I have the sad duty to report the passing away of Andr? Crucq, aged >78. >A well-known figure on the Belgian bridge scene, Andr? was a >regular TD and occasional AC member. Very sad indeed. I salute his memory. >"the last remaining natural bidder" As I am, in the USA, and proud of it. For proof, see my Skeleton system www.marvinfrench.com/skeleton.pdf > (I remember him scoring two tricks, as declarer, with Q8 facing 64) and the strange sigh he released when he decided which card to play. This needs explaining. All I can think of is that the defenders are protecting another suit in dummy, with Andre void in that suit. Or it might have been an elopement in trumps. The late Milton Vernoff of Los Angeles abandoned an AK in dummy opposite his void when two discards would not suffice. We novices each clutched three clubs when he ran trumps, whereupoon Milty's three in another suit were winners. First and last time I have seen that coup.over a sixty-year period. Marv Marvin L French From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 8 23:00:56 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:00:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] La belle claim sans merci [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: John Keats, slightly modified -> I saw pale kings, and princes too, Pale warriors, death pale were they all; They cried ? "La belle duplicate bridge Hath thee in thrall!" And this is why I sojourn here, Alone and palely loitering, Though the session is wither'd from the club, And no IMPs sing. Executive Summary A wording change to Law 68 prologue, Law 68A and Law 68B1 prevents dummy (or a spectator) claiming or conceding. Law 68B2 - amended the current "no concession has occurred" to "no concession (nor claim) has occurred". In Law 68C1 added an indicative example of a Claim Statement. New clause Law 68C2 clarifying that a defender cannot remind partner that a card which pard thinks is a loser is actually a winner. New Law 69B3 and new Law 71(3) which mirrors the "waive rectification for cause ... upon the request of the non-offending side" Law 81C5, since there are no such animals as non-offending sides in dodgy claim situations. The infamous footnote to the claim Laws has been rewritten to provide a floor for "normal". Law 70A has been rewritten to incorporate the WBF LC revoke interpretation. Clarifying footnote for "outstanding trump" Law 70C2. 2018 LAW 68 - CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS For a statement or action by declarer or a defender to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*. If it does refer to subsequent tricks: A. Claim Defined Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that that player will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Declarer or a defender also claims when that player suggests that play be curtailed, or when cards are shown by that player (unless that player demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer's cards are faced after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply). B. Concession Defined 1. Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that that player will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. Declarer or a defender concedes all the remaining tricks when that player abandons their hand. 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and the other defender immediately objects, no concession (nor claim) has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it. C. Clarification Required for Claim 1. A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. (For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, declarer stating "the rest are mine" is sufficiently clear, even though it is entirely legal for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen.) 2. A defender who states that partner has a winning card or cards has illegally created unauthorized information, since partner may be unaware of this fact. So a claim statement by a defender shall reveal only that defender's own cards and own line of defence. D. Play Ceases After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival. * If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play. 2018 LAW 69 - AGREED CLAIM OR CONCESSION A. When Agreement is Established Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before that side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play. B. Director's Decision Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: 1. if a contestant agreed to the loss of a trick that that side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a contestant agreed to the loss of a trick that that side would likely have won had the play continued; or 3. if the claiming side requests, for a demonstrable bridge reason, that the non-claiming side be awarded one or more additional tricks. The board is rescored with such tricks reassigned. 2018 LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer (unless the non-claiming side has committed an undiscovered* revoke, in which case any doubtful point as to the claim shall be resolved in favour of the claimer). The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement made at the time of the claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely** that claimer at the time of the claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal*** play. D. Director's Considerations 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal*** line of play that would be less successful. 2. The Director does not accept any part of a defender's claim that depends on partner selecting a particular play from among alternative normal*** plays. 3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim. E. Unstated Line of Play 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal*** line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be weird or very inferior. 2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law). * That is, an undiscovered revoke is a revoke (established or unestablished) that the claimer did not know about prior to the claim. See also Law 63A3. ** i.e. to rule in favour of the claimer under this clause, the Director must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the claimer was aware of the outstanding trump. *** For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or somewhat inferior. "Normal" does not include play that would be weird or very inferior. For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, it would be weird and very inferior for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. 2018 LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: 1. if a contestant conceded a trick that that side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a contestant has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards; or 3. if the non-conceding side requests, for a demonstrable bridge reason, that the conceding side be awarded one or more additional tricks. The board is rescored with such tricks reassigned. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or somewhat inferior. "Normal" does not include play that would be weird or very inferior. For example, in a 7NT contract's two card ending of Kx in dummy and Ax in hand, it would be weird and very inferior for declarer to crash ace and king at trick twelve to create a defensive winner at trick thirteen. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111108/34746cc0/attachment-0001.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 8 23:42:40 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:42:40 -0800 Subject: [BLML] La belle claim sans merci [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <5CA3AF12E1C24326B58B356594DB5D86@MARVLAPTOP> >From Richard Hills: > A. Claim Defined > > 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede > one or more > tricks and the other defender immediately objects, no concession > (nor > claim) has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the > Director > should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has > been > exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card > but Law > 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the > information > may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it. > This is so unnecessarily complicated. When a defender claims, his partner's cards should be played by declarer. The "pro claim" is made to prevent partner from doing something irrational, as often happens. The pro can see that rational, even though inferior, play by partner will fulfill the claim. No TD or AC will assume an inrrational play from the partner's hand. I once witnessed a player blanking a king rather than discarding an ace, despite the fact that the lead was in dummy with AQ in the king's suit. "I couldn't discard an ace, could I?" That was an extreme case, but it remains true that a defender can claim in order to prevent a "serious error" on partner's part. That should not be possible. Nor should dummy be able to dispute a defensive claim. I did so once successfully, pointing out to the TD that partner had a very easy endplay that invalidated the claim. This particular partner would never have made the endplay, however. Can dummy do that? Yes, because when the claim was made play ceased and I was no longer dummy. Although it was legal, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Marv Marvin L French From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 9 11:59:48 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:59:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Law 26, pattern A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1825066541.1035907.1320836388525.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> I am with Robert on this one. One problem with the old L26A is that is it unclear when it applies, as "call related solely to a specified suit or suits" does not specify when it applies. Thomas richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Executive Summary > > With the advent of the 2007 Law 16D, the 2007 Law 26 was not really > necessary (and indeed the 2007 Drafting Committee contemplated drastic > surgery towards Law 26 before eventually opting for more incremental > alterations). > > I have revised the title and contents of the hypothetical "pattern A" 2018 > Law 26 to (in effect) make it a footnote to the hypothetical 2018 Law 16D, > but retained the 2018 Law 26 as a 2018 Law to provide clarification to > grass-roots Directors. This is analogous to the 2007 Law 75 being (in > effect) a footnote to the 2007 Law 40, but the 2007 Law 75 retained as a > 2007 Law to provide clarification to grass-roots Directors. > > 2018 LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE RESTRICTIONS > > When an offending player's call is withdrawn, and that player chooses a > different* final call for that turn, then if that player becomes a > defender: > > A. Call Related to Specific Suit > > if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no > other suit), and > > 1. if each such suit was specified in the legal auction by the same player, > then that defender's partner is not necessarily restricted in any choices > amongst logical alternative cards. Law 16D1 applies to declarer, Law 16D2 > does not necessarily apply to the defender's partner. > > 2. if any suit specified in the withdrawn call was not specified by the > same player in the legal auction, then that defender's partner is indeed > restricted in any choices amongst logical alternative cards. Law 16D1 > applies to declarer, Law 16D2 does indeed apply to the defender's partner. > > B. Other Withdrawn Calls > > For other withdrawn calls, Law 16D1 applies to declarer and Law 16D2 > applies to the defender's partner. > > C. Adjusted Score after Advantageous Withdrawn Call > > The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if the Director > considers that the withdrawn call has resulted in an advantage for the > defending side. > > * A call repeated with a much different meaning shall be deemed a different > call. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Wed Nov 9 13:15:39 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:15:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <126603837.1012877.1320840939195.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner -> > > [snip] > I play that 1NT-3C-Dbl is for penalties, but 1NT-3D-Dbl is for takeout. How > are they to guess that? > (Yes, there is a reason. Most pairs play that 2C is artificial and will bid > 3C when unsafe; and 3D is free as a takeout bid.) > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > I play the lead of a deuce against a suit contract as showing an odd number > of cards in that suit. > I play the lead of a deuce against a notrump contract as showing a desire > for pard to continue that suit. > How are they to guess that? > > Easy. When playing against non-experts who have not played against me > before, I am careful to pre-Alert at the start of the round or match that > not only do Ali-Hills play unusual defensive signals, but also those > unusual signals vary between notrump contracts and suit contracts. I > furthermore advise the non-expert opponents to seek more details if and > when one of them becomes declarer. What's the problem? > > ABF Alert Regulation, clause 3.1.3 -> > > Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) should also be > pre-alerted at this stage. The problem is mainly one of alert regulations, where some alert regulations sometimes make it impossible to inform opponents AT THE TIME THE UNUSUAL BID IS MADE that they need to inquire (other than by violating the alert regulation, that is). Pre-alerting is nice, but at least at MPs with 15 minutes for two boards you do not have the time to pre-alert everything which might be surprising. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 9 14:31:49 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:31:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] in memoriam In-Reply-To: <86FCE802C3B2476C9805D8322BFBAE5C@MARVLAPTOP> References: <4EB9389D.2010301@ulb.ac.be> <86FCE802C3B2476C9805D8322BFBAE5C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4EBA80C5.4000704@ulb.ac.be> Le 8/11/2011 19:04, Marvin French a ?crit : > Alain wrote: > > >> I have the sad duty to report the passing away of Andr? Crucq, aged >> 78. >> A well-known figure on the Belgian bridge scene, Andr? was a >> regular TD > and occasional AC member. > > Very sad indeed. I salute his memory. > >> "the last remaining natural bidder" > As I am, in the USA, and proud of it. For proof, see my Skeleton > system > www.marvinfrench.com/skeleton.pdf > >> (I remember him scoring two tricks, as declarer, with Q8 > facing 64) and the strange sigh he released when he decided which > card > to play. > > This needs explaining. All I can think of is that the defenders are > protecting another suit in dummy, with Andre void in that suit. Or > it might have been an elopement in trumps. The lead was under an honor, but apparently unreadable. RHO, holding ATxxx, thought he had to keep the suit open. The 8 scored a trick. Thereafter, East played small a second time to keep the communication open, thinking that partner had led from three small (apparently, confusion came from the use of MUD, the lead and later play of the 9 being consistent with 9xx, while LHO didn't want to play his small card and block the suit). Of course, many declarers would have reacted at the sight of dummy and this would have helped the defenders. Isn't it Robson who said "Qx is a stopper if you say it is" ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 18:41:06 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:41:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 40 filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 27, 2011, at 5:29 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2018 LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS > > A. Players' Systemic Agreements > > 1. (a) Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a > partnership may be mutually reached explicitly in discussion or > implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the two > players. A partnership understanding cannot be created by a > unilateral belief of only one player. > > (b) Each partnership has a duty to make available its frequent and/ > or important partnership understandings to opponents before > commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority is empowered > to specify the manner in which this shall be done, and empowered to > specify its definitions of "frequent" and "important". > > 2. Information conveyed to partner through such partnership > understandings must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of > the current deal. Each player is entitled to take into account the > legal auction and, subject to any exclusions in these laws, the > cards that player has seen. Each player is entitled to use > information specified elsewhere in these laws to be authorized. > (See Law 73C.) > > 3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement > provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed > partnership understanding (see Law 40C1). > > B. Special Partnership Understandings > > 1. (a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate > certain partnership understandings as "special partnership > understandings". A special partnership understanding is one whose > meaning, in the reasonable opinion* of the Regulating Authority, > may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant > number of players in the tournament. > > (b) Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a > partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the > Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and > treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is > the case with any call that has an artificial meaning. > > 2. (a) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to > allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership > understanding. It may prescribe a System Card with or without > supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership's > understandings, and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may > prescribe alerting procedures and/or other ways of disclosure of a > partnership's methods. It may vary the general requirement that the > meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the > member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation > must not restrict style and judgement, only method). > > (b) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may > not consult that player's own system card after the auction period > commences until the end of play, except that players of the > declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the > Clarification Period. > > (c) Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may > consult the other side's system card > > (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, > > (ii) during the Clarification Period, and > > (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at that > player's turn to call or play. > > (d) The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic > artificial calls. > > 3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a > partnership to vary its understandings during the auction or play > following a question asked, a response to a question, or any > irregularity. > > 4. A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents' > failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as > these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award > of an adjusted score. > > 5. When a side is damaged by an opponent's use of a special > partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations > governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in > breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty. > > 6. (a) When explaining the significance of partner's call or play > in reply to opponent's enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose > all special information conveyed through partnership agreement or > partnership experience but that player need not disclose inferences > drawn from that player's knowledge and experience of matters > generally known** to bridge players. > > (b) The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an > explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent > is thereby damaged. > The term "agreement" creates confusion in the current laws, because in ordinary English parties must "agree" to something in order to have an "agreement". Common understandings created by mutual experience are not, in the normal sense, "agreements". We should take the opportunity to expunge this confusion from TFLB. The subject of L40 is "partnership understandings", and should refer to them throughout as "understandings". It (or Definitions, or both) should state that "partnership understandings include both explicit understandings reached through partnership agreement and implicit understandings reached through partnership experience" (or some such). If the word "agreement" appears anywhere else in TFLB, it should be used only to refer specifically to the former type of "understanding". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 18:51:36 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:51:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9024406B-AD49-484E-AC67-D6EE4B8C9995@starpower.net> On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:30 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Natural Call ? is a call which is taken for granted by players > generally (for example, an opening bid of 1NT which promises 16-18 > hcp and also denies a 5-card major is a Natural Call, despite > restrictions on possible hcp and major suit length), unless such a > generally-taken-for-granted call is specified to instead be an > Artificial Call by the Regulating Authority. > Why don't we stick to English? "A call which is taken for granted by players generally" is a "standard" call. Such calls include, for example, Blackwood, which is by no definition (other than Richard's proposed one, above) a "natural" call. It has taken decades to undo the damage caused by the ACBL's one-time conflation of "natural bidding" with "standard bidding", which tied the interpretation of what should have been simple disclosure requirements into ridiculous knots for years. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 19:01:27 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:01:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Introduction filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:21 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > INTRODUCTION TO THE 2018 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE > [snip] > Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or > adjusted score awarded by the Director. > While I appreciate the sentiment, the above statement is simply wrong, unless we wish to eliminate players' rights to appeal Directors' decisions. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 19:19:32 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:19:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law In-Reply-To: References: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1C50B042-167E-4D1A-B48F-CA9A9A36993D@starpower.net> On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [AG] Some bids don't need any explanation. What do you do in those > cases ? > [Nigel] If its meaning is not on the matrix then you must explain. For > example, the Sharples brothers used meaningless so-called "impulse" > bids. > > [AG] I experimented with this (behind screens) and it works well. > [Nigel] Good! > > [AG] but loses time when you explain and they don't care, which is > more > common. > [Nigel] It should take the same time to point to square in a matrix > as to > alert. Because every call is explained, explanations don't > interrupt the > rhythm of the auction. Currently, players have to take time out to > decide > whether or not a call is alertable. Also, currently opponents > sometimes wait > for you to alert what is in fact a natural bid. Finally, If you > use the > "don't explain" card (As I would unless using screens) then you > save even > more time. > > [AG] but creates UI from explanations or uncertainty in case (like > relay > sequences) when the risk of error is high and the need for > instantaneous > information is low. > [Nigel] True. But for those who always ask, such UI is > unavoidable. Anyway, > there will be a large net-saving in UI. Anyone who could even contemplate requiring that "every call [be] explained" has never sat down to play in a serious bridge event with a partner to whom he was introduced a couple of minutes before game time. The noise and confusion surrounding those explanations would overwhelm and drown out any actual bidding. Serious bridge players understand "we just met five minutes ago and agreed to play two-over-one". They don't need to hear it again after every call. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 19:45:45 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:45:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I think, in terms of format for presentation, that things should be as > easy as possible for WBFLC members to evaluate. So I would start > this with > what you want to accomplish. E.g., > > "This is a change in content. I think directors should be forced to > give > more weight to unverifiable self-serving testimony." > > Or maybe that isn't your goal, you don't really say a goal. > > Then you can discuss why you think that is useful. You don't really > have > that here. Then I think you have to evaluate it including the > minuses. So > for example you could note on the minus side that this encourages > lying. > Or, I don't know how you evaluate the fact that this gives players one > more way to appeal a decision they don't like. But that's a minus > for me. > > Or you can leave out the minuses, but they you are trying to get > your way, > not helping the WBFLC make good decisions. > > Then you can show how you might rewrite the laws if you have > thought about > that. That of course is all you did here. Nothing wrong with that, you > just need more. > > I am pretty sure this is right for suggested changes. > > For this particular case, you have the problem that there are other > serious minuses for giving a lot of weight to unverifiable self- > serving > testimony. And if you want to specify how directors should make > rulings, I > think you have to get that right, and that is going to be really > hard to > do. Minuses also include rewarding cheating and forcing directors > to rule > in a way that calls players a liar. IMO, it is much better to have a > policy like "I don't accept claims of inadvertant Blackwood > responses" or > "I don't accepts claims of inadvertant calls when the two calls > come from > different parts of the bidding box." Then I can agree with them > that they > are telling the truth to me and still rule against them. And of > course I > ignore the testimony "I was going to do that even if partner didn't > hesitate." Nobody is suggesting that directors be "forced to give... a lot of weight to unverifiable self-serving testimony". All that has been suggested is that it is wrong for a director to dismiss verbal evidence -- verifiable or not -- totally out of hand simply because it is obviously "self-serving". The idea is for directors to give at least some consideration to such testimony before they decide to assign it zero weight, if that's what they deem appropriate -- to understand that "deprecate" does not necessarily mean "ignore". Just because a person is paranoid doesn't mean he isn't persecuted, and just because a player's statement is self-serving doesn't mean it isn't true. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 20:21:30 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:21:30 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D02A41F-F31D-4DA2-B12C-635D8AB3D384@starpower.net> On Oct 30, 2011, at 7:18 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2018 LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS > > F. Explanation of Calls > > 1. (a) During the auction before the final pass, any player may > request, but only at that player's turn to call, honest*** > explanations of the opponents' prior auction. That player is > entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant > alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant > inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of > partnership understanding. That player is not entitled to ask about > calls that might be made in an entirely different auction (for > example, if the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding of > the opponents in a particular auction is that 4NT promises 5/5 in > the minors, that player is not entitled at that time to ask about > the opponents' responses to their 4NT Keycard Blackwood > convention), but that player retains the right to peruse the > opponents' System Card. > I think it opens a very nasty can of worms to permit any exceptions whatsoever to "each partnership[s'] duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents" [L40A1(b)]. No reasonable (i.e. L73- and L74-compliant) request for disclosure should be allowed to be met with, "I don't have to tell you that." In ACBL competition, Richard's formulation would grant me the right to call the director to demand that my opponents be forced on the spot to fully and properly complete their convention cards so as to provide me in writing with the information as to the specific form of Blackwood they might be playing, but would not allow me to just ask them. The Kaplan paradigm is simple and definitive, and far less likely to lead to fistfights at the table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 20:51:46 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:51:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 16 filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:57 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2018 LAW 16 AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION > > B. Extraneous Information from Partner > > 1. If a partner makes available to a player extraneous information > that may suggest a call or play, by: > [snip] > then > > the player may not choose from among logical alternatives one that > could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous information. Rather, the player must carefully avoid > taking any advantage from that unauthorized information from > partner (Law 73C). > Rewriting this along the lines of "the player may not choose a call or play that could demonstrably have been suggested over any logical alternative action by the extraneous information" would seem to convey the point of concern without the need for an explanatory footnote. > 2. A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of > players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would > be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such > players, of whom it is judged some might select it (if and only if > that class of players were unaware of the unauthorized > information).*** > > *** But the call or play made at the table is always deemed to be a > logical alternative, so it is always permitted for a Director or > appeals committee to rule that the call or play made at the table > is an illegal demonstrably suggested logical alternative. However, > despite being deemed to be a logical alternative, the call or play > made at the table could well be a "dumping" infraction of Law 72A. > > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 21:12:08 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:12:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <482A01A3-C3BC-4EE6-BB8A-BA22CF15A41A@starpower.net> On Oct 30, 2011, at 11:35 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard Hills -> > > Hypothetical 2018 Law 20B - Review of Auction during Auction Period > > During the auction period, a player is entitled to have all > previous calls restated* when it is that player's turn to call, > [snip rest of 2018 Law 20B] > > Robert Frick -> > > Act instead of call. There should be a technical term "act", > meaning to take some action that is part of the legal part of the > procedures of the game. Bid, play, answer a question, make a > decision in response to an irregularity, claim, dispute a claim. > And etc. > > Richard Hills -> > > In the core of the 2007 Lawbook the word "action" appears 32 times. > (The word "action" also appears an additional 13 times in the Index.) > > In all cases the meaning of the word "action" varies depending upon > the context in which it appears. Often the intended context is that > "action" is shorthand for "call or play". I agree that deleting > "action" and replacing it with "call or play", when that is the > intended meaning of "action", would be slightly reducing the > ambiguities of the 2018 Lawbook while slightly increasing the words > of the 2018 Lawbook. But "call", not "call or play" is sufficient > for Law 20B, since in that Law the context is "During the auction > period". > Bob's might perhaps have written "take some action that is required by the legal procedures of the game", but his point is well made. You cannot, for example, logically require a player to explain his partner's call over a bid by LHO without permitting him to first ascertain what LHO's bid meant. (N: INT. E: 2D. S: 2H. W: "What does 2H mean?" N: "It depends on what 2D meant." W: "I don't have to tell you that -- it's not your turn.") Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 9 21:33:40 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:33:40 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am References: Message-ID: <08DFEE41A87D4ABFB28ED5440C84F0A8@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > Nobody is suggesting that directors be "forced to give... a lot of > weight to unverifiable self-serving testimony". >.All that has been > suggested is that it is wrong for a director to dismiss verbal > evidence -- verifiable or not -- totally out of hand simply > because > it is obviously "self-serving". I wish TDs and ACs would look up the meaning of a term before using it. "Self-serving" means serving one's own interest often in disregard of the truth or the interest of others. It has nasty connotations. To designate a self-defending argument as self-serving is an insult. >The idea is for directors to give at > least some consideration to such testimony before they decide to > assign it zero weight, if that's what they deem appropriate -- to > understand that "deprecate" does not necessarily mean "ignore". > Just > because a person is paranoid doesn't mean he isn't persecuted, and > just because a player's statement is self-serving doesn't mean it > isn't true. But that is what "self-serving" implies. "Possibly biased" would be a better choice of words. And by the way, "oral" would be better than "verbal," the latter comprising both spoken and written words. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 22:08:58 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:08:58 -0500 Subject: [BLML] [OT] Transnationals In-Reply-To: <006001cc97cd$17bd17e0$473747a0$@online.no> References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> <4EAE997A.8010206@gmail.com> <006001cc97cd$17bd17e0$473747a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <40972344-FC5A-440B-9A17-2D2788191D39@starpower.net> On Oct 31, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Brian >> On 10/31/2011 07:59 AM, Larry wrote: >> >>> P.S... I started on an ICL 1903 (Cobol) in 1972. >>> 32K I think, but run 3-shifts with a staff of 30+ >> >> And the program's still running? > > [Sven Pran] No reason why it shouldn't if the need is still there. > > My navigation map calculating program written in Fortran for a > specific > project of mine back in the late sixties could still be run on any > decent > computer if needed. I know of one company that purchased an IBM 3000-series computer sometime in the 1980 and had to buy and install a 360 emulator so that they could buy and install a 1401 emulator (written for the 360) so that they could run their payroll program, which was written in the early 1960s in 1401 Autocoder, which nobody still there could read. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 9 22:42:27 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:42:27 -0500 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> On Oct 31, 2011, at 6:59 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Special Partnership Understanding(s) ? In its discretion the > Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership > understandings (q.v.) as ?special partnership understandings?. A > special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the > opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood > and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament. > This is confusing, as it leaves ambiguous the actual criterion for an SPU -- is it a "PU... whose meaning... may not be readily understood..." or is it defined by the "discretion [of] the RA"? These are distinctly different, even if the point of the law is that they are intended to coincide. Permit me to suggest something along the lines of: "In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate partnership understandings whose meaning, in their opinion, may not be readily understood or anticipated by a significant number of players {in the tournament} as "special partnership understandings." And why "in the tournament"? A PU should be an SPU, or not, consistently throughout the jurisdiction, not be left in the hands of individual tournament organizers. For each tournament to maintain their own lists of SPUs (versus non-S PUs) can only cause confusion and trouble. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 10 00:10:39 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 23:10:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law In-Reply-To: <1C50B042-167E-4D1A-B48F-CA9A9A36993D@starpower.net> References: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de><852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> <1C50B042-167E-4D1A-B48F-CA9A9A36993D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <23227EBA1DD44542BB69703B759E2FDF@G3> [Eric Landau] Anyone who could even contemplate requiring that "every call [be] explained" has never sat down to play in a serious bridge event with a partner to whom he was introduced a couple of minutes before game time. The noise and confusion surrounding those explanations would overwhelm and drown out any actual bidding. Serious bridge players understand "we just met five minutes ago and agreed to play two-over-one". They don't need to hear it again after every call. [Nigel] Under *current* laws and regulations, you are meant to alert calls that are alertable, even when unsure of their meaning. The proposed change to announcements wouldn't affect this current confusion but it caters well for Eric's other concerns. There would be less noise if players made use of a the provided card, containing a matrix of common explanations. Against a pair who have just met, I would elect to take up the suggested new option -- to ask them *not* to announce -- eliminating disturbance from the auction. From gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 10 12:09:54 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:09:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> There has been considerable discussion on Bridgebase Forum of late as to whether *failure* to ask a question is UI. We are not talking about the type of agreement, clearly illegal under 73B1, where you ask and then double to say "lead this suit", or double immediately to say" don't lead this suit." Take the following hand which occurred recently: North Axx Axxx Qxx Qxx Jx KQJTx xxx AKJ South South opened 1NT (14-16) and West bid 2D, which was alerted. North suspected that this might be multi-Landy, or something showing spades and another, and he was uncertain what his methods were over that, so he just bid 3NT. This turned out to be solid, with Four Hearts having no play. Some argue, in particular David Stevenson, that the fact that North does not ask, in a situation where he might have asked, is UI to South. I believe that the fact that "failure to ask a question" is not listed in 16B, while failure to alert is, suggests that the WBFLC consider that this cannot give UI. In our example, North-South had not discussed how to cope with multi-Landy. And we can assume that they had no agreement over asking either. From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Nov 10 12:31:57 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:31:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?A_Questionable_Action?= In-Reply-To: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1ROSrN-0kt7320@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Von: gampas at aol.com > There has been considerable discussion on Bridgebase Forum of late as > to whether *failure* to ask a question is UI. We are not talking about > the type of agreement, clearly illegal under 73B1, where you ask and > then double to say "lead this suit", or double immediately to say" > don't lead this suit." Take the following hand which occurred > recently: > North > Axx > Axxx > Qxx > Qxx > > Jx > KQJTx > xxx > AKJ > South > > South opened 1NT (14-16) and West bid 2D, which was alerted. North > suspected that this might be multi-Landy, or something showing spades > and another, and he was uncertain what his methods were over that, so > he just bid 3NT. This turned out to be solid, with Four Hearts having > no play. > > Some argue, in particular David Stevenson, that the fact that North > does not ask, in a situation where he might have asked, is UI to > South. hu ??? A player has the right to ask (at his own turn to call), but no player has the duty to ask. So how can an action that is not required by Law to do ever be an "irregularity" if _not_ chosen. In fact the player may even know the answer in which case it is a violation of Law 20 G1 to ask. Furthermore Law 16 A1a says information that derives from the legal calls [...] is authorized. And the "information" in this scenario is that North is not interested in the meaning of 2 D. Nothing more to say, IMO. > I believe that the fact that "failure to ask a question" is not listed > in 16B, while failure to alert is, suggests that the WBFLC consider > that this cannot give UI. In our example, North-South had not > discussed how to cope with multi-Landy. And we can assume that they > had no agreement over asking either. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 13:54:05 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:54:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <1ROSrN-0kt7320@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> References: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <1ROSrN-0kt7320@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: 2011/11/10 Peter Eidt : > Von: gampas at aol.com >> There has been considerable discussion on Bridgebase Forum of late as >> to whether *failure* to ask a question is UI. We are not talking about >> the type of agreement, clearly illegal under 73B1, where you ask and >> then double to say "lead this suit", or double immediately to say" >> don't lead this suit." Take the following hand which occurred >> recently: >> North >> Axx >> Axxx >> Qxx >> Qxx >> >> Jx >> KQJTx >> xxx >> AKJ >> South >> >> South opened 1NT (14-16) and West bid 2D, which was alerted. North >> suspected that this might be multi-Landy, or something showing spades >> and another, and he was uncertain what his methods were over that, so >> he just bid 3NT. This turned out to be solid, with Four Hearts having >> no play. >> >> Some argue, in particular David Stevenson, that the fact that North >> does not ask, in a situation where he might have asked, is UI to >> South. > > hu ??? > > A player has the right to ask (at his own turn to call), > but no player has the duty to ask. So how can an > action that is not required by Law to do ever be an > "irregularity" if _not_ chosen. In fact the player may > even know the answer in which case it is a violation > of Law 20 G1 to ask. > > Furthermore Law 16 A1a says information that derives > from the legal calls [...] is authorized. And the "information" > in this scenario is that North is not interested in the > meaning of 2 D. > Nothing more to say, IMO. > >> I believe that the fact that "failure to ask a question" is not listed >> in 16B, while failure to alert is, suggests that the WBFLC consider >> that this cannot give UI. In our example, North-South had not >> discussed how to cope with multi-Landy. And we can assume that they >> had no agreement over asking either. Well, what if NS do have some complex agreements over any possible conventional meanings for the 2D overcall, which north have a habit of mixing up. Do you think it is correct procedure to act like this: 3NT without asking = I don't care what 2D means, I want to play 3NT anyway. 3NT after asking = 3NT has the agreed meaning over whatever 2D means (no major suit stopped for example). > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 10 15:09:50 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:09:50 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <1ROSrN-0kt7320@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4EBBDB2E.9050103@aol.com> On 10/11/2011 12:54, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > Well, what if NS do have some complex agreements over any possible > conventional meanings for the 2D overcall, which north have a habit of > mixing up. > > Do you think it is correct procedure to act like this: > 3NT without asking = I don't care what 2D means, I want to play 3NT anyway. > 3NT after asking = 3NT has the agreed meaning over whatever 2D means > (no major suit stopped for example). I completely agree it is illegal to "communicate" by a question not asked. 73B1 states: 1. Partners shall not communicate by questions asked or not asked of the opponents . The only sensible way of interpreting this is that there must be no prearranged meaning to actions after asking or not asking. Otherwise the player is bound to "communicate" whenever there is an alert. If he asks he wants to know; if he doesn't ask he doesn't want to now. If that is all that is "communicated" there cannot be a breach of Law 73B1 otherwise it would always be breached. If a question is followed by a bid, then all that is communicated is that the person wanted to know. If it is followed by a Pass then it conveys UI that the person was considering bidding depending on the answer to the question. But 16B1 gives a "question" in its list, albeit it "for example" of things that could convey UI. The failure to ask a question is not listed. Correctly. Yes, it is correct procedure to bid 3NT without asking. 20F1 states: During the auction and before the final pass, any player **may** request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents? prior auction. If it was not proper procedure, that Law would not say *may*. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111110/d80d0d39/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 10 15:52:02 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:52:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Knowingly and Unknowingly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:19 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > 2018 LAW 79 - TRICKS WON > > C. Error in Score > > 1. An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, > whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the > expiration of the period specified by the Tournament Organizer. > Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a later* time, this > Correction Period expires 30 minutes after the official score has > been made available for inspection. But the Director is permitted > to award a Law 91A reduction in a side's score due to a > Disciplinary Penalty whether or not the Correction Period has > already expired. > > 2. Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a scoring > error may be corrected after expiry of the Correction Period if the > Director and the Tournament Organizer are both satisfied beyond > reasonable doubt that the record is wrong. > > * An earlier time may be specified when required by the special > nature of a contest. > If the Tournament Organizer can establish any correction period they choose, why not just say so? -- "Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a different time..." It seems unneccesarily complicated and verbose to provide for "later time" in the body of the text, then provide for "earlier time" separately in a footnote. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 10 16:33:14 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:33:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <1ROSrN-0kt7320@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> References: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <1ROSrN-0kt7320@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4EBBEEBA.1010707@ulb.ac.be> Le 10/11/2011 12:31, Peter Eidt a ?crit : > Von: gampas at aol.com >> There has been considerable discussion on Bridgebase Forum of late as >> to whether *failure* to ask a question is UI. We are not talking about >> the type of agreement, clearly illegal under 73B1, where you ask and >> then double to say "lead this suit", or double immediately to say" >> don't lead this suit." Take the following hand which occurred >> recently: >> North >> Axx >> Axxx >> Qxx >> Qxx >> >> Jx >> KQJTx >> xxx >> AKJ >> South >> >> South opened 1NT (14-16) and West bid 2D, which was alerted. North >> suspected that this might be multi-Landy, or something showing spades >> and another, and he was uncertain what his methods were over that, so >> he just bid 3NT. This turned out to be solid, with Four Hearts having >> no play. >> >> Some argue, in particular David Stevenson, that the fact that North >> does not ask, in a situation where he might have asked, is UI to >> South. > hu ??? > > A player has the right to ask (at his own turn to call), > but no player has the duty to ask. So how can an > action that is not required by Law to do ever be an > "irregularity" if _not_ chosen. AG : you're answering another question here. Nobody said that bidding 3NT without asking was an irregularity. It has only be siggested that this perfctly lawful way to act could create UI - as, for example, answering a question would occasionally do. From bunji.ivan at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 20:06:11 2011 From: bunji.ivan at gmail.com (Ivan Bunji) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:06:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1NT with sington Message-ID: Hi, Almost everyone knows that one can tolerate if 1NT is opened with singleton Ace or King. But what happens if that singleton is lower ranking honor (even lower spot card 9, 8,...). Is there any general remedy (sanction, penalty, adj.score, procedural penalty, etc.) for that infraction. Everything on that issue would be appreciated very much. Ivan BUNJI, Serbian Bridge TD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111110/5ed6de92/attachment-0001.html From petereidt at t-online.de Thu Nov 10 20:20:25 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:20:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?1NT_with_sington?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1ROaAj-17uXvU0@fwd17.aul.t-online.de> Hi Ivan, Von: Ivan Bunji > Almost everyone knows that one can tolerate if 1NT is opened with > singleton Ace or King. > But what happens if that singleton is lower ranking honor (even lower > spot card 9, 8,...). > Is there any general remedy (sanction, penalty, adj.score, procedural > penalty, etc.) for that infraction. > Everything on that issue would be appreciated very much. The issue is normally dealt with by the regulations in force. The WBF uses "balanced" and "semi-balanced" for hands that do not need an alert. But the WBF does not define that terms (afaik). In Germany we call "balanced" (4 3 3 3), (4 4 3 2) and (5 3 3 2) and "almost-balanced" (5 4 2 2), (6 3 2 2) and (4 4 4 1), (5 4 3 1) if the singleton is an A, K or Q. Other hands that contain a singleton with any lower card are not considered "almost-balanced" and have to be alerted when used. From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Thu Nov 10 21:29:23 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:29:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1NT with sington In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601cc9fe7$7fb5bba0$7f2132e0$@com> Ivan writes : Hi, Almost everyone knows that one can tolerate if 1NT is opened with singleton Ace or King. But what happens if that singleton is lower ranking honor (even lower spot card 9, 8,...). Is there any general remedy (sanction, penalty, adj.score, procedural penalty, etc.) for that infraction. Everything on that issue would be appreciated very much. Ivan BUNJI, Serbian Bridge TD Do you speak about an occasional deviation or an agreement, implicit or not ? See Law 40C. Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Quebec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111110/ec040305/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 10 22:42:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:42:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] 1NT with singleton [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fowler, "Modern English Usage" -> _Petitio principii_ or "begging the question". The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. "Arguing in a circle" is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right. Ivan Bunji (Serbian Bridge TD) -> Almost everyone knows that one can tolerate if 1NT is opened with singleton Ace or King. But what happens if that singleton is lower ranking honor (even lower spot card 9, 8,...). Is there any general remedy (sanction, penalty, adj.score, procedural penalty, etc.) for that infraction. Everything on that issue would be appreciated very much. Richard Hills (grate blmler) -> Petitio principii "almost everyone knows" a partnership understanding to open 1NT with a singleton ace or king is not an infraction. Petitio principii "almost everyone knows" a partnership understanding to open 1NT with a lower singleton is an infraction. In both cases almost everyone knows Law 40A1 applies, with each of the two partnership understandings illegal unless appropriately disclosed. But if both partnership understandings are appropriately disclosed, then neither is _intrinsically_ an infraction. Whether or not either partnership understanding is a Law 40B5 infraction depends upon the local regulations of the local Regulating Authority and local Tournament Organizer. Serbia may wish to adopt a default regulation, "The EBU White Book applies unless a specific Serbian regulation says otherwise." The EBU White Book can be downloaded from: http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/ EBU White Book clause 40.1.7 -> Opening 1NT with a singleton The L&EC expects an opening 1NT with a singleton which departs from the partnership's methods to be recorded and classified as a psyche or deviation whenever the TD finds sufficient evidence of intent. This does not apply to a pair who opens 1NT if it falls within their agreements as to range and type of singleton. Example A player opens 1NT with 11 HCP, a 4441 hand and a singleton ten in clubs. This will be treated as a psyche if the pair does not allow a singleton, or the singleton should systemically be a high honour, and their range is 12-14. However if they play 11-14 and allow a singleton of any size then it is not a psyche. If they play it as 11-14 HCP and singleton queen or better then it would be ruled as a deviation. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111110/b22de5f8/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Thu Nov 10 22:54:57 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:54:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] 1NT with singleton In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:42:53 +1100." Message-ID: <20111110215500.CA7B0A8C85A@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > EBU White Book clause 40.1.7 -> > > Opening 1NT with a singleton > > The L&EC expects an opening 1NT with a singleton which departs from the > partnership's methods to be recorded and classified as a psyche or > deviation whenever the TD finds sufficient evidence of intent. This does > not apply to a pair who opens 1NT if it falls within their agreements as to > range and type of singleton. > > Example > A player opens 1NT with 11 HCP, a 4441 hand and a singleton ten in clubs. > This will be treated as a psyche if the pair does not allow a singleton, or > the singleton should systemically be a high honour, and their range is > 12-14. However if they play 11-14 and allow a singleton of any size then it > is not a psyche. If they play it as 11-14 HCP and singleton queen or better > then it would be ruled as a deviation. John Probst once opened an 0=8=2=3 hand with 1NT. He had the correct HCP count, somewhere from 12-14 as per their agreement. I wonder, would the EBU rule apply considering that he didn't have a singleton? (If I remember the story, his partner used Stayman and he responded 2D because he didn't have a four-card major.) :) -- Adam From bunji.ivan at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 23:06:28 2011 From: bunji.ivan at gmail.com (Ivan Bunji) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:06:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 1NT with sington In-Reply-To: <000601cc9fe7$7fb5bba0$7f2132e0$@com> References: <000601cc9fe7$7fb5bba0$7f2132e0$@com> Message-ID: Certainly, not an agreement, but occasionally On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:29 PM, laval dubreuil wrote: > Ivan writes :**** > > ** ** > > Hi, **** > > ** ** > > Almost everyone knows that one can tolerate if 1NT is opened with > singleton Ace or King.**** > > ** ** > > But what happens if that singleton is lower ranking honor (even lower spot > card 9, 8,...).**** > > ** ** > > Is there any general remedy (sanction, penalty, adj.score, procedural > penalty, etc.) for that infraction.**** > > ** ** > > Everything on that issue would be appreciated very much.**** > > ** ** > > Ivan BUNJI, Serbian Bridge TD**** > > ** ** > > Do you speak about an occasional deviation or an agreement, implicit or > not ?**** > > See Law 40C.**** > > ** ** > > Laval Du Breuil**** > > Adstock, Quebec**** > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111110/6bdcb25f/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 10 23:29:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:29:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EBBEEBA.1010707@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Laurence Binyon (1869 - 1943), For the Fallen -> They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, We will remember them. Alain Gottcheiner -> Nobody said that bidding 3NT without asking was an irregularity. It has only be suggested that this perfectly lawful way to act could create UI - as, for example, answering a question would occasionally do. Richard Hills -> Nine decades ago my Aussie ancestors fought for the freedom of Alain's Belgian ancestors. On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month Aussies observe a minute's silence to remember all the casualties of all wars. And Alain is correct. Paul's observation that "failure to ask a question" is not listed in Law 16B / Law 73C is irrelevant, because those lists are merely lists of indicative examples. Before the Law 16B1(a) list is "as for example by", while before the Law 73C list is the synonymous phrase "such as from". Ergo, if in a particular auction you would expect pard to ask a question before bidding 3NT, but pard unexpectedly bids 3NT without a question, that violation of expectation is information which is additional to Law 73A1 authorised information, hence extraneous information. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111110/97a003b6/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 11 01:00:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:00:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Knowingly and Unknowingly [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 79 footnote -> * An earlier time may be specified when required by the special nature of a contest. Eric Landau -> If the Tournament Organizer can establish any correction period they choose, why not just say so? -- "Unless the Tournament Organizer specifies a different time..." It seems unnecessarily complicated and verbose to provide for "later time" in the body of the text, then provide for "earlier time" separately in a footnote. Pocket Oxford Dictionary special, adj. Of a peculiar or restricted kind, not generally applicable or prevalent or occurring Richard Hills -> A Tournament Organizer _cannot_ establish any Correction Period they choose. While the Tournament Organizer's previously published Conditions of Contest may freely specify a Correction Period greater than the default Correction Period of 30 minutes, the Tournament Organizer's previously published Conditions of Contest _must not_ specify a Correction Period shorter than 30 minutes "unless _required_ by the _special_ nature of a contest". Will Rogers (1879 - 1935) -> Half our life is spent trying to find something to do with the time we have rushed through life trying to save. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111111/13fff586/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 11 01:40:45 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:40:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Angel of justice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Shirin Ebadi (1947 - ), former Iranian judge and winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize -> Judges and lawyers are each one wing of the angel of justice, but one of them has been amputated in Iran. Executive Summary In the 2001 Kansas City casebook Grattan Endicott deprecated a "nark" appeal by a totally undamaged non-offending side seeking only the imposition of a Procedural Penalty upon the offending side. So I have added a footnote to Law 92. Law 93B3, final sentence, borrowed from the WBF Code of Practice. Law 93C3(b), final phrases, copied from the 2008 WBF LC minutes. LAW 92 - RIGHT TO APPEAL A. Contestant's Right A contestant (or its captain) may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table* by the Director. Any such appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. B. Time of Appeal The right to request or appeal a Director's ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection unless the Tournament Organizer has specified a different time period. C. How to Appeal All appeals shall be made through the Director. D. Concurrence of Appellants An appeal shall not be heard unless 1. in a pairs event both members of the partnership concur in making the appeal (but in an individual contest an appellant does not require partner's concurrence). 2. in a team event the team captain concurs in making the appeal. * The Director's ruling may be appealed only by a side which was present at the table where the irregularity was resolved. Either side may appeal the Director's ruling, with the one exception that the non-offending side must not appeal for the sole purpose of imposing or increasing a Procedural Penalty upon the offending side. 2018 LAW 93 - PROCEDURES OF APPEAL A. No Appeals Committee The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon all appeals if there is no Appeals Committee (or alternative arrangement under Law 80B2(k)), or if such cannot operate without disturbing the orderly progress of the tournament. B. Appeals Committee Available If a committee is available, 1. The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. Such ruling may be appealed to the committee. 2. The Director in charge shall refer all other appeals to the committee for adjudication. 3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend that the Director in charge change such a ruling.) The Appeals Committee's ruling shall take no account of the interests of other contestants in the outcome (that is, there is no such thing as "damage to the field"). C. Further Possibilities of Appeal 1. Regulating Authorities may establish procedures for further appeals after the foregoing procedures have been exhausted. Any such further appeal, if deemed to lack merit, may be the subject of a sanction imposed by regulation. 2. The Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter for later consideration by the Regulating Authority. The Regulating Authority has authority to resolve any matter finally. 3. (a) Notwithstanding 1 and 2 above, where deeming it crucial to the progress of the tournament the Regulating Authority may assign the responsibility for dealing finally with any appeal to the respective tournament Appeals Committee and, along with the parties to the appeal, is then bound by the outcome. (b) With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws, but this does not extend to overriding the rights of contestants to appeal under Law 92A (therefore if the Regulating Authority makes no arrangement for an appeal to be heard -- see Law 80B2(k) -- the Director in charge shall hear and rule upon it under Law 93A).* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111111/d63c5db1/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 11 02:35:57 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:35:57 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Angel of justice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7FD9266B2D6E47A48FA7A0D7D3D5B5B7@G3> [Shirin Ebadi (1947 - ), former Iranian judge and winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize] Judges and lawyers are each one wing of the angel of justice, but one of them has been amputated in Iran. [Angel of justice] In the 2001 Kansas City casebook Grattan Endicott deprecated a "nark" appeal by a totally undamaged non-offending side seeking only the imposition of a Procedural Penalty upon the offending side. So I have added a footnote to Law 92. [Devils? advocate] IMO, an important justification for appeals is that justice be seen to be done. Hence, IMO ... - A pair should be allowed to appeal an over-friendly ruling that allows his opponents to escape without even a procedural penalty for a blatant and hideous crime. - A pair should be allowed to appeal a ruling in it's favour if it is over-generous or wrong in law. - A director should be allowed to appeal his own ruling, which is in accord with the law but flagrantly unfair. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 11 02:52:05 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:52:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Simple In-Reply-To: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: [gampas] There has been considerable discussion on Bridgebase Forum of late as to whether *failure* to ask a question is UI. We are not talking about the type of agreement, clearly illegal under 73B1, where you ask and then double to say "lead this suit", or double immediately to say" don't lead this suit." Take the following hand which occurred recently: North Axx Axxx Qxx Qxx South Jx KQJTx xxx AKJ South opened 1NT (14-16) and West bid 2D, which was alerted. North suspected that this might be multi-Landy, or something showing spades and another, and he was uncertain what his methods were over that, so he just bid 3NT. This turned out to be solid, with Four Hearts having no play. Some argue, in particular David Stevenson, that the fact that North does not ask, in a situation where he might have asked, is UI to South. I believe that the fact that "failure to ask a question" is not listed in 16B, while failure to alert is, suggests that the WBFLC consider that this cannot give UI. In our example, North-South had not discussed how to cope with multi-Landy. And we can assume that they had no agreement over asking either. [Nige1] IMO, under current law, most information (other than calls, plays, and opponent's infractions) is unauthorised. For instance, partners' alert or failure to alert, partner's question or *failure* to ask, and partner's answer -- all such information is UI. But *creation* of such UI is usually OK. Currently, the infraction is the *use* of UI, when choosing between logical alternatives. Once information is revealed, however, it is hard for players not to take advantage. (For example, when partner's alert or explanation wakens you up to a forgotten understanding). Few players understand UI law; fewer have the moral probity and mental agility required to comply with it. For instance, when asked, players say that they make the call they would always make, without UI. They honestly think that fulfils their legal duty. Hence, current law handicaps the handful of ethical players, who know and abide by it. In summary, current UI law is troublesome, at best unworkable, and at worst a generous bonus to law-breakers. It may be better to classify legally acquired information as authorised but try to restrict the *generation* of UI. There are many suggested law-simplifications to that end. Unfortunately, law-makers and directors seem hell-bent on more rather than less complexity. BLML discussions seem to indicate that hell for players is heaven for some contributors. They may have a mistaken idea of their own best interests. The rules of bridge are a Heath-Robinson concoction of over-sophistcated laws, creating a vast morass of idiosyncratic local regulation. Further cancerous growth of this chaotic structure will hasten the demise of Bridge for players and directors alike. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 11 03:04:39 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:04:39 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Angel of justice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7FD9266B2D6E47A48FA7A0D7D3D5B5B7@G3> References: <7FD9266B2D6E47A48FA7A0D7D3D5B5B7@G3> Message-ID: <4C0385A1499F429EA8F3360D28AC5523@G3> [Shirin Ebadi (1947 - ), former Iranian judge and winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize] Judges and lawyers are each one wing of the angel of justice, but one of them has been amputated in Iran. [Angel of justice] In the 2001 Kansas City casebook Grattan Endicott deprecated a "nark" appeal by a totally undamaged non-offending side seeking only the imposition of a Procedural Penalty upon the offending side. So I have added a footnote to Law 92. [Devils? advocate] IMO, an important reason for appeals is so that justice be seen to be done. Hence, IMO ... - An undamaged pair should be allowed to appeal an over-friendly ruling that allows its opponents to escape without even a procedural penalty for a blatant and hideous crime. - A pair should also be allowed to appeal a ruling in its favour if it's over-generous or wrong in law. - A director should be allowed to appeal his own ruling, which is in accord with the law but flagrantly unfair. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 11 04:20:23 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:20:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Angel of justice [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7FD9266B2D6E47A48FA7A0D7D3D5B5B7@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] - A director should be allowed to appeal his own ruling, which is in accord with the law but flagrantly unfair. Richard Hills -> For those Regulating Authorities which use the WBF Code of Practice, for example Nigel's RA of the English Bridge Union, Nigel's postulated conditions seem to me to be an impossible contradiction-in-terms. The CoP phrase "rule automatically" seems to me to be synonymous with Nigel's phrase "in accord with the law but flagrantly unfair". WBF CoP page 6, Director's judgement after consultation -> It is the function of the Director to make a ruling in a judgemental matter, having consulted appropriately, that executes most accurately the intention of the laws. The desire is that the Director shall not rule automatically in favour of the non-offending side when he is in no doubt that a true judgement requires him to rule otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111111/1ed6491b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 11 07:07:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:07:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> Message-ID: PU = partnership understanding; SPU = Special Partnership Understanding; SPUD = potato Eric Landau -> [snip] And why "in the tournament"? A PU should be an SPU, or not, consistently throughout the jurisdiction, not be left in the hands of individual tournament organizers. For each tournament to maintain their own lists of SPUs (versus non-SPUs) can only cause confusion and trouble. Richard Hills -> You say potato, I say potato.(1) In my opinion variable SPUs instead prevent confusion and prevent trouble for non-experts. The EBU regulations for so-called "No Fear" tournaments define as SPUs many conventions which are commonplace non-SPUs elsewhere in that jurisdiction. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) And former American Vice-President Dan Quayle says potatoe. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111111/88e2333f/attachment.html From blml at arcor.de Fri Nov 11 14:55:04 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:55:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <689154165.532001.1321019704540.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > PU = partnership understanding; SPU = Special Partnership Understanding; > SPUD = potato > > Eric Landau -> > > [snip] > And why "in the tournament"? A PU should be an SPU, or not, consistently > throughout the jurisdiction, not be left in the hands of individual > tournament organizers. For each tournament to maintain their own lists of > SPUs (versus non-SPUs) can only cause confusion and trouble. > > Richard Hills -> > > You say potato, I say potato.(1) > > In my opinion variable SPUs instead prevent confusion and prevent trouble > for non-experts. The EBU regulations for so-called "No Fear" tournaments > define as SPUs many conventions which are commonplace non-SPUs elsewhere in > that jurisdiction. > > Kind regards, > > Richard Hills > > (1) And former American Vice-President Dan Quayle says potatoe. In the Dan Quayle incident, the "individual tournament organizer" had decided to spell "potatoe". Dan Quayle only got stuck in that. Your footnote supports Eric's point :-) Thomas From gampas at aol.com Fri Nov 11 16:02:44 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:02:44 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EBD3914.9000705@aol.com> On 10/11/2011 22:29, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Paul's observation that "failure to ask a question" is not listed in > Law 16B / Law 73C is irrelevant, because those lists are merely lists > of indicative examples. However, the list includes "a question", "a reply to a question", "an alert" and "failure to alert". It would have been easy for the lawmakers to include the absence of a question if they thought it could convey UI. Under the ejusdem generis principle the absence of a question is not of the same type as the listed examples, and therefore should not be considered as giving UI. The absence of an alert is very different. I am sure that faillure to alert does not give UI when there was no requirement to alert. Similarly, if the auction goes 1S-(4H)-4S-(5H) and the 1S bidder passes in *normal* tempo, I am sure that this does not convey UI, even though one might expect there to be a BIT in this auction. So, the items listed and the items not listed are very relevant, and indicate what should be regarded as UI and what should not. By example. But there is no point us speculating on whether the lack of a question can convey UI. We should ask the lawmakers what they intended in 16B. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111111/3d677d3f/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Fri Nov 11 16:56:54 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:56:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EBD3914.9000705@aol.com> References: <4EBD3914.9000705@aol.com> Message-ID: <000d01cca08a$893ae0d0$9bb0a270$@online.no> Have you by any chance noticed Law 73B1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.???? Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av PL Sendt: 11. november 2011 16:03 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] On 10/11/2011 22:29, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: Paul's observation that "failure to ask a question" is not listed in Law 16B / Law 73C is irrelevant, because those lists are merely lists of indicative examples. However, the list includes "a question", "a reply to a question", "an alert" and "failure to alert". It would have been easy for the lawmakers to include the absence of a question if they thought it could convey UI. Under the ejusdem generis principle the absence of a question is not of the same type as the listed examples, and therefore should not be considered as giving UI. The absence of an alert is very different. I am sure that faillure to alert does not give UI when there was no requirement to alert. Similarly, if the auction goes 1S-(4H)-4S-(5H) and the 1S bidder passes in *normal* tempo, I am sure that this does not convey UI, even though one might expect there to be a BIT in this auction. So, the items listed and the items not listed are very relevant, and indicate what should be regarded as UI and what should not. By example. But there is no point us speculating on whether the lack of a question can convey UI. We should ask the lawmakers what they intended in 16B. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111111/36aabadd/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 11 17:38:51 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:38:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4EBD3914.9000705@aol.com> Message-ID: PL wrote: > Under the ejusdem generis principle the absence of a question is > not of > the same type as the listed examples, and therefore should not be > considered as giving UI. The international world of duplicate bridge does not recognize that principle, as indicated by its PPs for actions not of the type listed by Law 90B. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From gampas at aol.com Sat Nov 12 02:24:00 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:24:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4EBD3914.9000705@aol.com> Message-ID: <8CE6EF0E3E6A78C-340-1CE7E@webmail-d012.sysops.aol.com> [Marvin French] The international world of duplicate bridge does not recognize that principle, as indicated by its PPs for actions not of the type listed by Law 90B. [Paul Lamford] "but the offences are not limited to these" is included in 90B, but there is no similar clause in 16B. Otherwise I would agree with you. And the inclusion of "failure to alert", and the exclusion of "failure to ask a question" seems intentional. It would be good if a member of the WBFLC can indicate if "failure to ask a question" was considered and rejected for inclusion in 16B. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 12 16:57:25 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:57:25 -0800 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4EBD3914.9000705@aol.com> <8CE6EF0E3E6A78C-340-1CE7E@webmail-d012.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <76597B772DEA47519226BA958AEBC293@MARVLAPTOP> >From Paul Lanford > [Marvin French] > The international world of duplicate bridge does not recognize > that > principle, as indicated by its PPs for actions not of the type > listed > by Law 90B. > > [Paul Lamford] > "but the offences are not limited to these" is included in 90B, That does NOT mean you can include anything you wish. Ejusdem generis says that any offense based on a list of this sort must be of the same kind. It is as if "and the like" were appended (which should be the case for L90B). It's a frequently-cited invalid argument by people who should know better.. The ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations says that discipline can only be imposed by a disciplinary committee, with the exception of emergency situations handled by L91. TDs/ACs who use L90 to discipline players for ethical violations because they are too lazy to document them properly are violating both the ejusdem generis principle and the CDR. Why do you suppose the title of L90 (L86 at the time) was changed from Disciplinary Penalties to Procedural Penalties in 1975? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Nov 12 20:01:42 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:01:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> On 11/10/2011 6:09 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > There has been considerable discussion on Bridgebase Forum of late as > to whether *failure* to ask a question is UI. ... > Some argue, in particular David Stevenson, that the fact that North > does not ask, in a situation where he might have asked, is UI to South. I'm astonished that anyone would disagree. Let's try another example: RHO opens 1D, alerted. This is the ACBL, where "could be short" is announced, so you know the bid is something strange. You look at your hand and see 5-5 in the majors, so without asking a question, you bid 2D to show this hand type. OK, next deal, again 1D opened on your right. This time you are looking at long diamonds and a decent hand. You ask about the 1D bid and hear that it's entirely artificial, so you bid 2D to show the suit. Does anyone really think this is legal? I am, by the way, giving a real-world example -- seen many times, in fact. Never was there any prior agreement, yet everyone at the table knew the meaning of both 2D bids. Of course if the bids occur on consecutive deals, as in my example, it's obvious something is wrong, but why should the method be legal even on one deal standing alone? L16B1a starts out "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play..." Whether partner asks or not seems to be extraneous, and as we see above it can suggest a call or play. It seems unthinkable to me that it could be AI. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Nov 12 20:26:10 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:26:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] 1NT with sington In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EBEC852.6050505@nhcc.net> On 11/10/2011 2:06 PM, Ivan Bunji wrote: > Almost everyone knows that one can tolerate if 1NT is opened with > singleton Ace or King. > > But what happens if that singleton is lower ranking honor (even lower > spot card 9, 8,...). > > Is there any general remedy (sanction, penalty, adj.score, procedural > penalty, etc.) for that infraction. Why is it an infraction? In a practical case, the Director first has to determine whether the bid was a rare "adventure" by the player concerned or was made on the basis of a partnership understanding. If the 1NT bid was a deviation from the partnership's normal understandings, the bid was legal, and there's no question of any penalty or adjusted score (L40A3, 40C1 first sentence). If the bid was based on a partnership understanding, then there are two questions: whether the understanding was legal in the jurisdiction concerned and whether the understanding was properly disclosed. If the understanding was illegal, the infraction is the same as any illegal agreement, say using a brown sticker convention in an event where they are forbidden. The jurisdiction should have regulations about what to do. If not, probably the simplest thing is the EBU approach: avg+ for the non-offenders, avg- and an additional 10% PP for the offenders. Some different adjusted score would also be OK. If the understanding was legal but not properly disclosed, there is a debate about how to proceed. Some people adjust the score under Law 21B3, the basis of adjustment being what would have happened if the understanding had been properly disclosed. In this view, if the opponents would have done nothing different even knowing of the possibility of a singleton, there is no adjustment. (Note the _possibility_ of a singleton; the opponents are never entitled to know the player actually holds a singleton on that specific deal.) Other people think the failure to disclose is a separate infraction (last sentence of L40C1) and adjust the score on the basis that the bid was not made. In this view, it's the bid itself, not the failure to disclose, that is the infraction. My own view is that L40A1b determines which route to take, but not everyone agrees with me. Ideally your jurisdiction will have a specific regulation, but many do not. In that case, you have to decide what infraction there was, if any, and adjust the score on the basis of what would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. Hope this helps. From gampas at aol.com Sat Nov 12 22:05:33 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 21:05:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EBEDF9D.5000204@aol.com> On 12/11/2011 19:01, Steve Willner wrote: > Never was there any prior agreement, yet everyone at the table > knew the meaning of both 2D bids. Then there was an implicit agreement, and that is a breach of 73B1. It is clearly legal to not ask a question and then bid. Which Law do you think it might breach? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Nov 13 02:09:36 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 20:09:36 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4EBEDF9D.5000204@aol.com> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <4EBEDF9D.5000204@aol.com> Message-ID: <4EBF18D0.4090909@nhcc.net> On 11/12/2011 4:05 PM, PL wrote: > It is clearly legal to not ask a question and then bid. No one has argued otherwise unless you yourself are doing so. My contention (and apparently David's as well) is that the fact of whether you did or did not ask is UI to partner. SW> everyone at the table knew the meaning of both 2D bids. > Then there was an implicit agreement, and that is a breach of 73B1. No agreement existed prior to the deal. If you are saying that asking or failing to ask is what created the agreement, then you've just argued that one or the other must have been illegal. That seems strange to me and more severe than saying that the fact of asking (or not) is UI, but I suppose you could be right. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 13 17:45:11 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:45:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 Message-ID: Can anyone think of a situation where you would make a better ruling because L64B7 was in the laws? PROPOSED CHANGE IN CONTENT: Remove L64B7 2007: "There is no rectification as in A above folowing an established revoke when both sides have revoked on the same board." SHORT STORY If retained, L64B7 needs nonobvious correction. However, there seems to be no reason to even keep it -- it replaces our (good) method of handling revokes with a suboptimal method. I can't think of any situation where it leads to a fairer ruling. LONG STORY SUBOPTIMAL The purpose of the automatic revoke penalties is to (usually) ensure that there is no gain from the revoke and hence that the director does not have the time-consuming and difficult task of calculating equity. Removing this automatic revoke penalty for a revoke by each side forces the director to determine equity for two revokes. In other words, given a tried a true method of handling revokes, this law abandons it for a suboptimal method. Meanwhile, I cannot think of any situation where I would make a better ruling because of L64B7. FREQUENCY In 4 years I have never applied it. One could argue that, because of this low rate of occurrence, it could be left in the lawbook with little damage. But the low rate of occurrence argues even more strongly for removing it. Make the lawbook shorter. Why should directors have to study and learn this law? And of course the infrequency argues that the law isn't needed even if it was marginally useful. WOULD DIRECTORS RULE CORRECTLY? 1. Consider the situation where declarer is on track to make 9 tricks. The defense revokes in a way that does not affect play, so declarer is now on track to make 9 tricks plus 1 trick for the revoke. Declarer now revokes, in a way that gains one trick. I think the correct ruling, per the WBFLC minute, is to give declarer 10 tricks, as equity should be determined at the point before the second revoke. I am guessing that not many directors would rule this way. I am not sure, but I think that the ruling, from the book or the minute, depends on *when* the penalty for a revoke occurs. L64B2 in a sense has the same problem, but at least there the revoking penalty occurs. For L64B7, the penalty disappears. So I think, in the first example, that the ruling is different if the order of the revokes is reversed. But that assumes the equity for the first revoke is calculated assuming that there will be a revoke penalty. DEFINING WHICH REVOKES THIS LAW APPLIES TO The law, as written, cancels the penalty for an established revoke even when the other revoke was not established. This is presumably not what was intended or desired. I am guessing that the intended formulation is to ignore both revokes when they otherwise would receive L64A rectification. This is simple to apply and needs to be done for L64B anyway. So this would not be an issue, except a suboptimal formulation (e.g., the cancellation occurs only when both revokes are established) is likely to work for L64B2, because there are not that many ways for a side to revoke twice in the same suit. There are many ways for each side to revoke and so suboptimal formulations are likely to fail for L64B7. For example, consider when one of the revokes occurs at trick 12 -- it is established, but there is no rectification. So does L64B7 apply? From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Nov 13 18:01:49 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:01:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Correction_to_laws_--_eliminate_L64B7?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RPdRF-0RNjxA0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Robert Frick" [snip] > WOULD DIRECTORS RULE CORRECTLY? > 1. Consider the situation where declarer is on track to make 9 tricks. > The defense revokes in a way that does not affect play, so declarer is > now on track to make 9 tricks plus 1 trick for the revoke. Declarer > now revokes, in a way that gains one trick. I think the correct > ruling, per the WBFLC minute, is to give declarer 10 tricks, as equity > should be determined at the point before the second revoke. no > I am guessing that not many directors would rule this way. hopefully not, because it is illegal. > I am not sure, but I think that the ruling, from the book or the > minute, depends on *when* the penalty for a revoke occurs. no. What is so difficult in the English language when reading "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke, when both sides have revoked on the same board." ? No rectification tricks, so never 10 tricks in sight. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 13 18:32:25 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:32:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <1RPdRF-0RNjxA0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RPdRF-0RNjxA0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:01:49 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: "Robert Frick" > [snip] > >> WOULD DIRECTORS RULE CORRECTLY? >> 1. Consider the situation where declarer is on track to make 9 tricks. >> The defense revokes in a way that does not affect play, so declarer is >> now on track to make 9 tricks plus 1 trick for the revoke. Declarer >> now revokes, in a way that gains one trick. I think the correct >> ruling, per the WBFLC minute, is to give declarer 10 tricks, as equity >> should be determined at the point before the second revoke. > > no > >> I am guessing that not many directors would rule this way. > > hopefully not, because it is illegal. > >> I am not sure, but I think that the ruling, from the book or the >> minute, depends on *when* the penalty for a revoke occurs. > > no. What is so difficult in the English language > when reading "There is no rectification as in A > following an established revoke, when both sides > have revoked on the same board." ? > > No rectification tricks, so never 10 tricks in sight. Thank you very much. You are supporting one of my points, right? But I need to make sure you understand. Declarer took 10 tricks. If there is no rectification, how are you getting to 9? I am not saying you can't, I am just wondering how you do it. Obviously it can't be done without any rectification, which is why I worry you aren't understanding correctly. Planned revision: "I am guessing that not many directors would rule this way, and at least one person is vehement that the correct ruling is 9 tricks." From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Nov 13 18:44:10 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:44:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Correction_to_laws_--_eliminate_L64B7?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RPe6E-1DTeIy0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Robert Frick" > On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:01:49 -0500, Peter Eidt > wrote: > > > > Von: "Robert Frick" > > [snip] > > > >> WOULD DIRECTORS RULE CORRECTLY? > >> 1. Consider the situation where declarer is on track to make 9 > tricks. > >> The defense revokes in a way that does not affect play, so declarer > is >> now on track to make 9 tricks plus 1 trick for the revoke. > Declarer >> now revokes, in a way that gains one trick. I think the > correct >> ruling, per the WBFLC minute, is to give declarer 10 > tricks, as equity >> should be determined at the point before the > second revoke. > > > > > no > > > >> I am guessing that not many directors would rule this way. > > > > hopefully not, because it is illegal. > > > >> I am not sure, but I think that the ruling, from the book or the > >> minute, depends on *when* the penalty for a revoke occurs. > > > > no. What is so difficult in the English language > > when reading "There is no rectification as in A > > following an established revoke, when both sides > > have revoked on the same board." ? > > > > No rectification tricks, so never 10 tricks in sight. > > Thank you very much. You are supporting one of my points, right? no, at least not intended ;-) > But I need to make sure you understand. Declarer took 10 tricks. no, I do not understand. According to your OP (which you can read near the top of this email) "Consider the situation where declarer is on track to make 9 tricks ..." > If > there is no rectification, how are you getting to 9? I am not saying > you can't, I am just wondering how you do it. Obviously it can't be > done without any rectification, which is why I worry you aren't > understanding correctly. > > Planned revision: "I am guessing that not many directors would rule > this way, and at least one person is vehement that the correct ruling > is 9 tricks." yes From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Nov 13 18:50:18 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:50:18 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <1RPe6E-1DTeIy0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RPe6E-1DTeIy0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:44:10 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: "Robert Frick" >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:01:49 -0500, Peter Eidt >> wrote: >> >> >> > Von: "Robert Frick" >> > [snip] >> > >> >> WOULD DIRECTORS RULE CORRECTLY? >> >> 1. Consider the situation where declarer is on track to make 9 >> tricks. >> >> The defense revokes in a way that does not affect play, so declarer >> is >> now on track to make 9 tricks plus 1 trick for the revoke. >> Declarer >> now revokes, in a way that gains one trick. I think the >> correct >> ruling, per the WBFLC minute, is to give declarer 10 >> tricks, as equity >> should be determined at the point before the >> second revoke. >> > >> >> > no >> > >> >> I am guessing that not many directors would rule this way. >> > >> > hopefully not, because it is illegal. >> > >> >> I am not sure, but I think that the ruling, from the book or the >> >> minute, depends on *when* the penalty for a revoke occurs. >> > >> > no. What is so difficult in the English language >> > when reading "There is no rectification as in A >> > following an established revoke, when both sides >> > have revoked on the same board." ? >> > >> > No rectification tricks, so never 10 tricks in sight. >> >> Thank you very much. You are supporting one of my points, right? > > no, at least not intended ;-) Intention doesn't matter! I claimed that most directors would rule 9 tricks. Can you provide better support? Well, yes, because I am not sure you understand the problem. But if you stay with the answer of 9, that's great for me. If I said the answer was 10, then you would be disagreeing with that. But I didn't say that. > >> But I need to make sure you understand. Declarer took 10 tricks. > > no, I do not understand. According to your OP (which > you can read near the top of this email) "Consider the > situation where declarer is on track to make 9 tricks ..." The second revoke changed that. Declarer gained a trick from the second revoke. I changed my proposal to make that clearer now. So you didn't understand the problem. Pity, I liked your answer. Sorry, about the confusion, again I corrected that in my proposal. What do you say now? From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Nov 13 22:09:32 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:09:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <1RPe6E-1DTeIy0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4EC0320C.2020102@nhcc.net> On 11/13/2011 12:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Declarer gained a trick from the second revoke. You take that away from him under L64C. There is no rectification trick transferred, but you restore equity as to tricks won. Declarer's revoke also nullifies the rectification trick he would have gained from the first revoke. 9 tricks. Your point about unestablished revokes is well taken; that needs to be cleared up. I'm happy enough with a revoke at trick 12 cancelling penalty tricks, though I can imagine a change to say otherwise. But I don't see the problem in the scenario you proposed. It occurs to me that you might be confusing the two-revoke scenario with a different scenario where there is a different irregularity instead of a second revoke. In such a case, declarer's equity does include the rectification trick. It is specifically the other side's revoke that cancels the rectification trick. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 14 00:25:32 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:25:32 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Ergo, if in a particular auction you would expect pard to ask a question before bidding 3NT, but pard unexpectedly bids 3NT without a question, that violation of expectation is information which is additional to Law 73A1 authorised information, hence extraneous information. Kind regards, Richard Hills ............................................................................ ........................................................... +=+ I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a question. In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? Is there a concealed understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5364 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111113/d695835b/attachment-0001.bin From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 14 01:06:42 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:06:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Macquarie Dictionary -> ejusdem generis, n. a rule of construction that when particular words used in an instrument or statute are followed by general words, the latter should be interpreted as being limited to the same sense as the former. [Latin: of the same kind] Paul Lamford -> [snip] Under the ejusdem generis principle the absence of a question is not of the same type as the listed examples, and therefore should not be considered as giving UI. [snip] Richard Hills -> Yes and No. Even before his De Wael School frolic was specifically outlawed, Herman De Wael gloried in its fatal flaw of ignoring the ejusdem generis principle (and ignoring the stare decisis principle, and ignoring the reductio ad absurdum principle, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera). Hence this 1998 WBF Laws Committee minute below debunking anything that Herman De Wael or Paul Lamford or Richard Hills or Grattan Endicott might say as individuals on blml; only quotes from a properly constituted corporate authority have Lawful validity. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6, Internet Bridge Laws Mailing list. -> The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present strange opinions. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he had said. The Committee was in part inclined to believe they should bring forward requests for decisions formally; the view was taken that subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at each year?s meetings. Paul Lamford -> [snip] But there is no point us speculating on whether the lack of a question can convey UI. We should ask the lawmakers what they intended in 16B. Law 73A1 - Appropriate Communication between Partners Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6, continued -> The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded intentions of the Committee represented the position of the Committee unless and until it changed them.(1) WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 8, Actions authorised in the laws -> The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorised, other actions if not expressly forbidden were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws(2) states that the laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, "extraneous" and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. Richard Hills -> Because lack of a question is not mentioned in Law 73A1, that lack is, therefore, "extraneous" and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) [Richard Hills] Of course it is also possible that a new 2007 Law may specifically over-ride an old 1998-2005 minute. For example, the various interpretations of the ridiculous 1997 Law 25B are now irrelevant due to that Law's replacement by the sensible 2007 Law 25B. (2) [Richard Hills] Now the 2007 Introduction which, like the 1997 Scope, is a binding part of the Laws. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111114/30967a7e/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 14 01:24:02 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:24:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> Grattan is absolutely correct. The lack of a question cannot convey UI, unless there is a CPU, which would be an infraction of 73B1 and which would be "the gravest possible offence" under 73B2. -----Original Message----- From: Grattan To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Sent: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:26 Subject: Re: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan Ergo, if in a particular auction you would expect pard to ask a question before bidding 3NT, but pard unexpectedly bids 3NT without a question, that violation of expectation is information which is additional to Law 73A1 authorised information, hence extraneous information. Kind regards, Richard Hills ......................................................................... ... ........................................................... +=+ I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a question. In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? Is there a concealed understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 14 01:30:48 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:30:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CE707BCA7D1D21-189C-3E5FF@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> [Richard Hills] Because lack of a question is not mentioned in Law 73A1, that lack is, therefore, "extraneous" and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play. [Paul Lamford] But it is mentioned in 73B, under inappropriate communication. Nobody is arguing that it is the "gravest possible offence" to communicate by means of a question not asked. However it is perfectly legal to decide not to ask a question and then bid whatever one likes. And it is perfectly legal for one's partner to decide what the bid means without the question. It is communication from the lawful calls and plays. The person *may* ask the meaning of the call not *must*. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 14 01:41:49 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:41:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott -> +=+ I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a question. In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? Is there a concealed understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In my opinion, there are two separate issues. The first issue (plagiarised from Steve Willner): Matchpoint pairs WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Hills.....Ch Ch.....Ali.......M. M. 1D (1)....? (1) Alerted North, Charlie the Chimp, looks at his cards. If Charlie holds a weak 5/5 in the majors, Charlie does not ask a question and bids 2D (Michaels Cue Bid). If Charlie instead holds 6 diamonds and opening values, Charlie does ask a question, discovers that my 1D opening could have as few as zero diamonds, and bids 2D (natural). This is simply an illegal convention, comparable to those novices who carefully wrote on their System Cards, "Our opening leads are mostly led from our right hands, but we lead singletons from our left hands." More interesting is the second issue. Matchpoint pairs WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Hills.....Ch Ch.....Ali.......M. M. Pass(1)...2D (2)....3NT.......Pass ? (1) Holding a weak two in hearts, but required to pass in the Ali-Hills system. (2) Alerted Whether or not Hashmat Ali asks a question about 2D, his 3NT has by partnership agreement a two-way meaning, either: (a) big and balanced, or (b) a long running minor with side stoppers. At matchpoints opposite (a) I want to convert to 4H, but opposite (b) I should pass. With option (b) Hashmat is more likely to ask a question about the alerted 2D. Thus the absence of a question demonstrably suggests (a) and demonstrably suggests I bid 4H, therefore I am required by Law 73C to Pass instead. What's the problem? Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111114/a3bd5eb8/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 14 01:48:49 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:48:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <4EC0320C.2020102@nhcc.net> References: <1RPe6E-1DTeIy0@fwd16.aul.t-online.de> <4EC0320C.2020102@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:09:32 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 11/13/2011 12:50 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Declarer gained a trick from the second revoke. > > You take that away from him under L64C. There is no rectification trick > transferred, but you restore equity as to tricks won. Yes, but how did you restore equity? Isn't it ambiguous? Declarer's revoke > also nullifies the rectification trick he would have gained from the > first revoke. 9 tricks. > > Your point about unestablished revokes is well taken; that needs to be > cleared up. I'm happy enough with a revoke at trick 12 cancelling > penalty tricks, though I can imagine a change to say otherwise. But I > don't see the problem in the scenario you proposed. > > It occurs to me that you might be confusing the two-revoke scenario with > a different scenario where there is a different irregularity instead of > a second revoke. I am not. I admit I was thinking that a missing card from a trick was a revoke. Is that clear to everyone? I am not even sure it is right, but that's my guess. > In such a case, declarer's equity does include the > rectification trick. Whoa. You think that declarer's equity never includes the rectification trick for a previous revoke? It is specifically the other side's revoke that > cancels the rectification trick. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 14 01:53:33 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:53:33 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EC0668D.4060308@aol.com> On 14/11/2011 00:41, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > At matchpoints opposite (a) I want to convert to 4H, but opposite (b) > I should pass. With option (b) Hashmat is more likely to ask a > question about the alerted 2D. Thus the absence of a question > demonstrably suggests (a) and demonstrably suggests I bid 4H, > therefore I am required by Law 73C to Pass instead. No, if the "absence of a question" is not UI, then you can do what you like. The crucial issue is whether "failure to ask a question" is deemed to be of the same type as the list in 16B. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111114/55d98e6c/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Nov 14 07:05:08 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:05:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EC0AF94.5070008@gmail.com> On 11/13/2011 06:25 PM, Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a > question. > In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? Maybe I'm missing something here, but how about when there is an alerted bid from opponents, and (some of) our continuations depend on what opponents' intervention means? For example, if I open a strong 1C, and LHO bids 1S, alerted, the agreed meaning of some of my partner's bids depend on whether the overcaller will hold spades (for example, 1S is Truscott) or will not hold spades (for example, 1S is Suction) or may or may not hold spades (for example, 1S is Panama). > Is there a > concealed > understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? There's just an expectation that, when partner's subsequent bids depend on the meaning of an overcall, she will either ask or consult the overcaller's CC about the meaning of an alerted bid (unless she happens to be certain of the meaning already, of course). In our system, it would make no sense for her to bid 2S over the 1S intervention without knowing the meaning of 1S. Playing online, of course, I can only infer that partner has checked the meaning of the overcall from a delay in her bidding caused by the overcaller typing in a response, but no delay means that the overcaller probably entered the meaning of his bid as it was made, rather than partner decided to guess the meaning. Brian. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 14 11:59:11 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:59:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801cca2bc$71142a00$533c7e00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert: SHORT STORY If retained, L64B7 needs nonobvious correction. However, there seems to be no reason to even keep it -- it replaces our (good) method of handling revokes with a suboptimal method. I can't think of any situation where it leads to a fairer ruling. ton: I consider it possible that you don't think far enough. Or it could be that our ideas of fairness differ. A famous example brought to our attention by Herman dW when it happened in Belgium (where else?) is the following: 6 -- 87 -- -- 7 9 5 6 5 T -- 84 7 -- -- Spades are trumps and West leads H9 ruffed in dummy, overruffed by East (revoke) and once again overruffed by South (revoke). South wins the last three tricks. According to the old laws South had to pay two penalty tricks. If this is not a case for a fairer ruling I have to ignore your further remarks on this issue. ton From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Nov 14 12:05:55 2011 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:05:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <1RPdRF-0RNjxA0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <004901cca2bd$6170c1c0$24524540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Robert and Peter: > No rectification tricks, so never 10 tricks in sight. Thank you very much. You are supporting one of my points, right? But I need to make sure you understand. Declarer took 10 tricks. If there is no rectification, how are you getting to 9? I am not saying you can't, I am just wondering how you do it. Obviously it can't be done without any rectification, which is why I worry you aren't understanding correctly. Planned revision: "I am guessing that not many directors would rule this way, and at least one person is vehement that the correct ruling is 9 tricks." ton: this is a situation I was afraid of when we changed all 'penalties' in 'rectifications' in 2007 The right word in L 64 is still 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks'. Which leaves the word 'rectification' to be used for L 64C. ton From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Mon Nov 14 12:33:34 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:33:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Skype: grattan.endicott > ******************************************** > "It is the true nature of mankind to learn > from mistakes, not from example." > (Sir Frederick Hoyle, > Astronomer) > "******************************************* > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org > ] > On Behalf Of > richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 10 November 2011 22:29 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills -> > > Ergo, if in a particular auction you would expect pard to > ask a > question before bidding 3NT, but pard unexpectedly bids 3NT > without a question, that violation of expectation is > information > which is additional to Law 73A1 authorised information, > hence > extraneous information. > > > Kind regards, > Richard Hills > > ............................................................................ > ........................................................... > +=+ I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a > question. > In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? Is there a > concealed > understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > The simplest case of which I can think: In ACBL land, the range of opening 1NT bids is to be announced. Assume that you and your partner have agreed different defenses based upon the opponents opening 1NT range. When the opponents fail to make the required announcement, and your partner fails to ask, UI has been created: He does not need to know the range to make his systemic bid. My conclusion has been that to avoid transmitting UI in this situation partner must ask the range of an un-announced opening 1NT Collins > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111114/864f5234/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 14 14:41:51 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:41:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Grattan Endicott] I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a question. In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? Is there a concealed understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? [Collins Williams] The simplest case of which I can think: In ACBL land, the range of opening 1NT bids is to be announced. Assume that you and your partner have agreed different defenses based upon the opponents opening 1NT range. When the opponents fail to make the required announcement, and your partner fails to ask, UI has been created: He does not need to know the range to make his systemic bid. My conclusion has been that to avoid transmitting UI in this situation partner must ask the range of an un-announced opening 1NT [Nigel Guthrie] You can expect several such scenarios in the average tournament. For example, many players behave as follows ... [A] RHO opens 1C, not alerted, but which you suspect could systemically be a two card suit. - 2C = Michaels - without asking. - 2C = Natural - after you ask and LHO confirms it could be less than 3 cards. [B] Partner opens 1N and RHO overcalls 2H, not alerted, but their cards says, for example "Modified Nairobi defence to 1N" - X = Take-out - without asking - X = Penalty - after you ask and LHO explains some artificial meaning. [C] Splinter and fit-jumps put opponents in a similar dilemma. [D] In loony jurisdictions, many artificial bids (e.g. doubles, redoubles, bids above 3N) are non-alertable! Manifestly, this worsens an already ludicrous situation. It is stretching language to call such things "concealed understandings" because they are common, even among pick-up partnerships. They arise because - Most players give up trying to learn the laws. It would be a full-time job to integrate the jungle of law-book and minutes with the morass of conflicting local regulations, interpretations, guides, conditions of contest, and so on. "Jungle" is an appropriate metaphor. If each player just printed them all out it would destroy an Amazon rain-forest. - Such an exercise would be futile, anyway. The laws are too sophisticated and unclear for most to understand. BLML law-makers and directors share this problem. Witness this thread. - Even if an ordinary player could know and understand unauthorised information law, he would be unlikely to be able to perform the mental gymnastics required to abide thereby. - For example, a secretary-bird is aware that if you *ever* ask about an unalerted call, you must ask about *all* calls (alerted or not, in every auction), to avoid subjecting partner to UI constraints. The ordinary players is too naive to understand even such simple and obvious things. The laws urgently need integration, completion, disambiguation, and drastic simplification. In past decades Law-makers seem to have been "in denial". Unfortunately, BLMLers are having too much fun discussing subtle legal ramifications, to sympathise with the unnecessary suffering of players. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 14 16:24:31 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:24:31 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan +=+ I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a question. In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? Is there a concealed understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In my opinion, there are two separate issues. The first issue (plagiarised from Steve Willner): Matchpoint pairs WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Hills.....Ch Ch.....Ali.......M. M. 1D (1)....? (1) Alerted North, Charlie the Chimp, looks at his cards. If Charlie holds a weak 5/5 in the majors, Charlie does not ask a question and bids 2D (Michaels Cue Bid). If Charlie instead holds 6 diamonds and opening values, Charlie does ask a question, discovers that my 1D opening could have as few as zero diamonds, and bids 2D (natural). This is simply an illegal convention, comparable to those novices who carefully wrote on their System Cards, "Our opening leads are mostly led from our right hands, but we lead singletons from our left hands." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6224 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111114/86fecd96/attachment-0001.bin From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 14 16:29:44 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:29:44 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <215F026F733F4567A8CC95809DDE9383@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> Grattan wrote: Grattan References: Message-ID: <4EC13516.5030507@aol.com> On 14/11/2011 11:33, Collins Williams wrote: > When the opponents fail to make the required announcement, and your > partner > fails to ask, UI has been created: He does not need to know the range > to make > his systemic bid. The original infraction is by the opponent in not announcing the no-trump range. UI is defined in 16B, and if it is deemed, by a TD or AC, that failure to ask a question is not of the same type as the examples therein, then no UI is created. Information is passed, but it is not unauthorised, as it derives from the legal calls and the procedures specified in the Laws (the right to ask or not ask as desired) and is not specified as unauthorised. A question, followed by a bid, however, can create UI, as it is specifically listed in 16B. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 14 16:47:04 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:47:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <004901cca2bd$6170c1c0$24524540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <1RPdRF-0RNjxA0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <004901cca2bd$6170c1c0$24524540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:05:55 -0500, ton wrote: > Robert and Peter: > >> No rectification tricks, so never 10 tricks in sight. > > Thank you very much. You are supporting one of my points, right? > > But I need to make sure you understand. Declarer took 10 tricks. If there > is no rectification, how are you getting to 9? I am not saying you can't, > I am just wondering how you do it. Obviously it can't be done without any > rectification, which is why I worry you aren't understanding correctly. > > Planned revision: "I am guessing that not many directors would rule this > way, and at least one person is vehement that the correct ruling is 9 > tricks." > > ton: > > this is a situation I was afraid of when we changed all 'penalties' in > 'rectifications' in 2007 > > The right word in L 64 is still 'penalties' and 'penalty tricks'. Which > leaves the word 'rectification' to be used for L 64C. > > ton So, using your words, there are no penalty tricks for the revokes. Neither player gained from the revoke (assuming equity for the second revoke is determined in reference to the situation before the second revoke). So there is no correction for equity. So declarer keeps his 10 tricks. Right? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 14 16:47:21 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:47:21 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EC13809.8040104@aol.com> On 14/11/2011 13:41, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > - For example, a secretary-bird is aware that if you*ever* ask about an > unalerted call, you must ask about*all* calls (alerted or not, in every > auction), to avoid subjecting partner to UI constraints. That would be the interpretation if the absence of a question was UI. In an earlier example on this thread, someone discussed this situation: I play that 1C-(Pass)-1M-(2C) is natural if clubs can be 2, and a weak hand with 5-5 in unbid suits if clubs are 3 or more. If 1C is alertable when 2, as in the UK, I never need to ask. Many pairs fail to alert a short club, however. If I ask about it, am told it can be 2, and then bid 2C, this is clearly natural. The question is UI, because it is so defined in 16B, but it is AI that 2C is natural, so no damage results, and the original infraction was by the opponent. If I do not ask and bid 2C, it is clearly AI that this must be 5-5 in the unbid suits, as the absence of a question is not UI. Again the original infraction is by the opponents, and partner is fully entitled to conclude that if I had clubs only I would have checked on how many clubs opener had. If, in the particular jurisdiction, 1C is not alertable when 2, then exactly the same arguments apply. The absence of a question is AI, and the asking of a question is UI. Because 16B says so, in effect. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111114/61832770/attachment-0001.html From gampas at aol.com Mon Nov 14 16:50:56 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:50:56 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC0AF94.5070008@gmail.com> References: <4EC0AF94.5070008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4EC138E0.5080202@aol.com> On 14/11/2011 06:05, Brian wrote: > There's just an expectation that, when partner's subsequent bids depend on the meaning of an overcall, she will either ask or consult > the overcaller's CC about the meaning of an alerted bid (unless she happens to be certain of the meaning already, of course). In our > system, it would make no sense for her to bid 2S over the 1S intervention without knowing the meaning of 1S. You are defeating your own argument. If someone does not ask about an alerted bid, the only conclusion that can be reached is that she already knows. You should act as though partner's bid is consistent with her knowing the meaning. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 14 17:21:27 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:21:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC13809.8040104@aol.com> References: <4EC13809.8040104@aol.com> Message-ID: <4EC14007.2040802@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/11/2011 16:47, PL a ?crit : > On 14/11/2011 13:41, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> - For example, a secretary-bird is aware that if you*ever* ask about an >> unalerted call, you must ask about*all* calls (alerted or not, in every >> auction), to avoid subjecting partner to UI constraints. > That would be the interpretation if the absence of a question was UI. > In an earlier example on this thread, someone discussed this > situation: I play that 1C-(Pass)-1M-(2C) is natural if clubs can be 2, > and a weak hand with 5-5 in unbid suits if clubs are 3 or more. If 1C > is alertable when 2, as in the UK, I never need to ask. Many pairs > fail to alert a short club, however. If I ask about it, am told it can > be 2, and then bid 2C, this is clearly natural. The question is UI, > because it is so defined in 16B, but it is AI that 2C is natural, so > no damage results, and the original infraction was by the opponent. If > I do not ask and bid 2C, it is clearly AI that this must be 5-5 in the > unbid suits, as the absence of a question is not UI. Again the > original infraction is by the opponents, *and partner is fully > entitled to conclude that if I had clubs only I would have checked on > how many clubs opener had.* > AG : I thnk that the disagreement is in the formulaiton. Since creating UI -and therefore subjecting partner to constraints- isn't an infraction, but is nevertheless harmful to your side, the sentence shouldn't be "you must ask", but "you'd rather not ask" ; and the Secretary Bird hasn't anything to say about actions that can be harmful to your side but are not per se infractions. Apart from this, I don't agree with the sentence in bold. Partner may not draw any inference from the fact that you asked or didn't. Else, if you knew that the opening was 2*, you only have not to ask to get back your lost 55 bid. You see, creating UI isn't an infraction, but using it is. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111114/3563e8af/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Nov 14 17:30:11 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:30:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <1RPdRF-0RNjxA0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <004901cca2bd$6170c1c0$24524540$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> > Robert Frick > So, using your words, there are no penalty tricks for the revokes. Neither > player gained from the revoke (assuming equity for the second revoke is > determined in reference to the situation before the second revoke). So > there is no correction for equity. So declarer keeps his 10 tricks. Right? [Sven Pran] When both sides have revoked on the same board then equity is determined to the situation before the first revoke for all revokes on that board. From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Nov 14 18:56:56 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:56:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Correction_to_laws_--_eliminate_L64B7?= In-Reply-To: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> Message-ID: <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Sven Pran" > > Robert Frick > > So, using your words, there are no penalty tricks for the revokes. > > Neither player gained from the revoke (assuming equity for the > > second revoke is determined in reference to the situation before the > > second revoke). So there is no correction for equity. So declarer > > keeps his 10 tricks. Right? > > [Sven Pran] When both sides have revoked on the same board then equity > is determined to the situation before the first revoke for all revokes > on that board. Peter: No, Sven, sigh ... Sao Paulo, 8 September 2009 "Nr.7: When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." But, Bob's story was about Declarer was on his way to 9 tricks ... the 1st revoke by defender did not give them any advantage ... the 2nd revoke by declarer got his side a trick. Therefore no penalty tricks (Law 64 B7) and 9 tricks to declarer which was equity before the 1st and before the 2nd revoke. Basta ... from my side. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 14 19:01:11 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:01:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Knowingly and Unknowingly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:00 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 79 footnote -> > > * An earlier time may be specified when required by the special > nature of a contest. > > Eric Landau -> > > If the Tournament Organizer can establish any correction period > they choose, why not just say so? -- "Unless the Tournament > Organizer specifies a different time..." It seems unnecessarily > complicated and verbose to provide for "later time" in the body of > the text, then provide for "earlier time" separately in a footnote. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary > > special, adj. Of a peculiar or restricted kind, not generally > applicable or prevalent or occurring > > Richard Hills -> > > A Tournament Organizer _cannot_ establish any Correction Period > they choose. While the Tournament Organizer's previously published > Conditions of Contest may freely specify a Correction Period > greater than the default Correction Period of 30 minutes, the > Tournament Organizer's previously published Conditions of Contest > _must not_ specify a Correction Period shorter than 30 minutes > "unless _required_ by the _special_ nature of a contest". > But that's meaningless. It's no different from a "special" partnership understanding: the only operative criteria for the "nature of the contest" to be "special" is that the sponsor has chosen to designate it as such. Richard seems to be saying that the organizer can set whatever correction period it chooses, but if it chooses to shorten it rather than lengthen it must make up some arbitrary excuse for doing so. In practice, it gives organizers no less authority to shorten correction periods than to lengthen them, and thus seems pointless. If, on the other hand, it is intended not as a real restriction but merely as an advisory, then it should offer some advice: "An earlier time may be specified as required when the contest is of a special nature, such as..." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 14 19:13:51 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:13:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC14007.2040802@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EC13809.8040104@aol.com> <4EC14007.2040802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6008E6EA42484DE5A73AE7799D830AE3@G3> [Nigel] [snip] - For example, a secretary-bird is aware that if you *ever* ask about an unalerted call, you must ask about *all* calls (alerted or not, in every auction), to avoid subjecting partner to UI constraints. [snip] [Alain Gottcheiner] Since creating UI -and therefore subjecting partner to constraints- isn't an infraction, but is nevertheless harmful to your side, the sentence shouldn't be "you must ask", but "you'd rather not ask" ; and the Secretary Bird hasn't anything to say about actions that can be harmful to your side but are not per se infractions. [Nige2] Summarising: "To avoid subjecting partner to UI constraints (when you do ask), you must always ask". An extreme example to high-light the problem: Your regulating body invents yet another daft rule in a vain attempt to justify its existence: "No double is alertable". Unfortunately, your partnership has a defence to some kinds of double (for instance: same-level conversion take-out doubles). Unless you ask about *all* doubles in this context... - If you ask, find the double means something else, and then pass, you tell partner you have a hand suitable for your convention, - If you don't ask, you tell partner that you don't hold a suitable hand for your convention. - Either way, you handicap partner if he was already considering an action that might have been suggested by you asking -- or not asking. You can hardly expect an ordinary player to follow that twisted logic - or even waste time trying to do so. But I hope the reasoning is clear to to a sophisticated BLMLer. It also seems obvious that the current laws and regulations are flawed. I think law-makers are gradually beginning to realise that more complexity just exacerbates such problems. A drastically simplified disclosure law might remove some of the worst anomalies. This could result in less fun for directors but the game would be fairer and more enjoyable for players. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 14 19:22:25 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:22:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:56:56 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: "Sven Pran" >> > Robert Frick >> > So, using your words, there are no penalty tricks for the revokes. >> > Neither player gained from the revoke (assuming equity for the >> > second revoke is determined in reference to the situation before the >> > second revoke). So there is no correction for equity. So declarer >> > keeps his 10 tricks. Right? >> >> [Sven Pran] When both sides have revoked on the same board then equity >> is determined to the situation before the first revoke for all revokes >> on that board. > > Peter: > No, Sven, sigh ... > > Sao Paulo, 8 September 2009 > "Nr.7: When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 > and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity > when that revoke occurs." > > But, Bob's story was about > Declarer was on his way to 9 tricks ... the 1st revoke by defender > did not give them any advantage ... the 2nd revoke by declarer > got his side a trick. > > Therefore no penalty tricks (Law 64 B7) and 9 tricks to declarer > which was equity before the 1st and before the 2nd revoke. Before the second revoke, equity was 10 tricks to declarer. (That is exactly how we would calculate it if the defending side had made the second revoke.) Right? I would love to be able to say this ruling was actually ambiguous > > Basta ... from my side. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From david.j.barton at lineone.net Mon Nov 14 19:55:24 2011 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:55:24 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC14007.2040802@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EC13809.8040104@aol.com> <4EC14007.2040802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1E122E0B37764B72AE296B60A6282B42@Lounge> Against a pair who are not native to your country and you have never seen before. At the start of the round they tell you their 2 bids are odd and you should ask. Convention cards are NOT exchanged. Board 1 goes (2D) alerted, asked about and explained as Multi ....... Board 3 goes (P) P (2D)** X **2D is alerted but not asked about At your turn to bid you ask about the 2D bid and are informed that in this position 2D was 3 suited with short Diamonds. So with 4 pieces of information (1) We have never seen this pair before (AI I guess) (2) Partner has not examined the convention card (No idea if this is AI) (3) The explanation to the previous 2D bid (AI I guess) (4) Partner's failure to ask You would be prepared to bet the Greek National Debt that partner thought he was doubling a Multi What are your obligations (a) in explaining partner's double (b) in your subsequent calls and why? ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 14 20:20:40 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:20:40 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> On Nov 12, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 11/10/2011 6:09 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> There has been considerable discussion on Bridgebase Forum of late as >> to whether *failure* to ask a question is UI. > ... >> Some argue, in particular David Stevenson, that the fact that North >> does not ask, in a situation where he might have asked, is UI to >> South. > I'm astonished that anyone would disagree. Of course we can *call it* UI, as it's clearly "extraneous" in the sense L16 uses the term, but that's not the real question. When we ask "Is it UI?", what we are really asking is whether it is possible to "use" it in such a way as to infract L16B, because if it isn't, what we choose to call it matters not a whit. > Let's try another example: RHO opens 1D, alerted. This is the ACBL, > where "could be short" is announced, so you know the bid is something > strange. You look at your hand and see 5-5 in the majors, so without > asking a question, you bid 2D to show this hand type. OK, next deal, > again 1D opened on your right. This time you are looking at long > diamonds and a decent hand. You ask about the 1D bid and hear that > it's > entirely artificial, so you bid 2D to show the suit. Does anyone > really > think this is legal? Let's try yet another example: RHO opens 1D, alerted. This is the ACBL, where "could be short" is announced, so you know the bid is something strange. You look at your hand and see long diamonds and a decent hand, so without asking a question, you bid 2D to show the suit. OK, next deal, again 1D opened on your right. This time you are looking at 5-5 in the majors. You ask about the 1D bid and hear that it's essentially natural, so you bid 2D to show your 5-5. Does anyone really think this is any less reasonble than Steve's example? If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you make a bid over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A and hand Y over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know whether it was A or B suggest either X or Y? > I am, by the way, giving a real-world example -- seen many times, in > fact. Never was there any prior agreement, yet everyone at the table > knew the meaning of both 2D bids. Of course if the bids occur on > consecutive deals, as in my example, it's obvious something is wrong, > but why should the method be legal even on one deal standing alone? > > L16B1a starts out "After a player makes available to his partner > extraneous information that may suggest a call or play..." Whether > partner asks or not seems to be extraneous, and as we see above it can > suggest a call or play. It seems unthinkable to me that it could > be AI. Moreover, it has been repeatedly pointed out in this forum that it is widely considered unethical, and is in some jurisdictions illegal, to ask a question, presumed to be for partner's benefit, if you already know the answer. So the obvious assumption, when partner unexpectedly fails to ask a question, is that he unexpectedly (from your perspective) already knows the answer. After all, were that not the case, it would be patently foolish for him to risk your assuming that it was, which would not only give you UI, but likely misleading UI at that. The argument that not asking a question can convey UI assumes that not asking a question implies that you don't care about the answer, and it's far from clear that such an assumption can reasonably be justified. That's a secondary issue, however, because even if it were, one would still need to justify the connection between that information and what it might suggest. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 14 20:50:51 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:50:51 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91F295EC-7469-4669-A57B-247B523BDFED@starpower.net> On Nov 13, 2011, at 7:06 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6, Internet > Bridge Laws Mailing list. -> > > The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were > mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, > especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take > guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present > strange opinions. The Secretary supported the Chairman in what he > had said. The Committee was in part inclined to believe they should > bring forward requests for decisions formally; the view was taken > that subjects might be collected and brought to the Committee at > each year?s meetings. > Perhaps the Committee and its Chairman should be less concerned with the fact that Directors in poor contact with their NBOs might believe what they read on BLML than with the fact that Directors are in poor contact with their NBOs in the first place. BLML, after all, is not a member of the WBF or a signatory to its bylaws, whilst NBOs are. It's called taking care of your own affairs first. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Nov 14 21:02:19 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:02:19 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <91F295EC-7469-4669-A57B-247B523BDFED@starpower.net> References: <91F295EC-7469-4669-A57B-247B523BDFED@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 13, 2011, at 7:06 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24th August 1998, item 6, Internet > > Bridge Laws Mailing list. -> > > > > The activities of the bridge laws mailing list on the Internet were > > mentioned. The Chairman expressed anxiety lest Directors, > > especially those in poor contact with their NBOs, began to take > > guidance from this source, some of whose contributors present > > strange opinions. > > Perhaps the Committee and its Chairman should be less concerned with > the fact that Directors in poor contact with their NBOs might believe > what they read on BLML than with the fact that Directors are in poor > contact with their NBOs in the first place. Or, worse yet, when the official magazine of an NBO publishes a column titled "Ruling the Game" which habitually includes its own set of strange opinions. -- 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/20111114/e90044ab/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 14 22:07:59 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:07:59 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4EC0AF94.5070008@gmail.com> References: <4EC0AF94.5070008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B9FB7D2-EF50-47E0-8972-296FC91E2589@starpower.net> On Nov 14, 2011, at 1:05 AM, Brian wrote: > On 11/13/2011 06:25 PM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ I am intrigued with the idea that one 'expects' partner to ask a >> question. >> In what circumstances can such an expectation arise? > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but how about when there is an > alerted bid from opponents, and (some of) our continuations depend on > what opponents' intervention means? > > For example, if I open a strong 1C, and LHO bids 1S, alerted, the > agreed meaning of some of my partner's bids depend on whether the > overcaller will hold spades (for example, 1S is Truscott) or will not > hold spades (for example, 1S is Suction) or may or may not hold spades > (for example, 1S is Panama). > >> Is there a >> concealed >> understanding that partner will ask a question? - or what? > > There's just an expectation that, when partner's subsequent bids > depend on the meaning of an overcall, she will either ask or consult > the overcaller's CC about the meaning of an alerted bid (unless she > happens to be certain of the meaning already, of course). So if she doesn't ask, wouldn't you naturally conclude that she happens to be certain of the meaning already? > In our > system, it would make no sense for her to bid 2S over the 1S > intervention without knowing the meaning of 1S. So if she did bid 2S, making no sense, how would that suggest anything potentially useful? > Playing online, of course, I can only infer that partner has checked > the meaning of the overcall from a delay in her bidding caused by the > overcaller typing in a response, but no delay means that the > overcaller probably entered the meaning of his bid as it was made, > rather than partner decided to guess the meaning. We seem to be spending an awful lot of words arguing the empty distinction between AI and UI which carries no "demonstrable suggestion". Since neither can give rise to a violation of L73C or to redress per L16B, why do we care? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 14 22:27:06 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:27:06 -0800 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action References: <91F295EC-7469-4669-A57B-247B523BDFED@starpower.net> Message-ID: Richard Willey wrote: Eric Landau wrote >> Perhaps the Committee and its Chairman should be less concerned >> with >> the fact that Directors in poor contact with their NBOs might >> believe >> what they read on BLML than with the fact that Directors are in >> poor >> contact with their NBOs in the first place. > > > Or, worse yet, when the official magazine of an NBO publishes a > column > titled "Ruling the Game" which habitually includes its own set of > strange > opinions. The ACBL is not an NBO. I believe "NBO" is old-fashioned and out of date. Ten years ago they were all changed to national bridge federations, not national bridge organizations. That was because the Olympic charter requires a national sport federation for each country. The ACBL is a Zonal Authority or Zonal Organization (both terms seem to be current. The USA never had an NBO prior to 2001, but the ACBL acted in place of one until the United States Bridge Federation was created in 2001. That made the ACBL independent of the WBF by-laws, meaning that the ACBL by-law saying the ACBL is reponsible for the laws of contract bridge is not in violation of the WBF by-laws. . American ACBL members automatically become non-voting peon members of the USBF, as the USBF By-laws declare. IRS requirements for non-profit organizations say, if I remember right, that members should have some means of affecting the organization's policy. It is only elite members who pay for a high-level membership in the USBF who have voting rights or eligibility for international team play representing the USA. I have neither. I don't want to be a member of the USBF, having no possibility of representing theUSA in international play, but I have no choice. Canadians, when they join the ACBL, are given the option of also joining the Canadian Bridge Federation, paying extra for that privilege. Only a minority do so, and yet the ACBL sends dues for the CBF to the WBF along with USBF and Mexican dues. The amount for the CBF is based on the number of Canadians who joined the ACBL, not the the actual number of CBF members. That means the ACBL is sending too much money to the WBF for no good reason. Had to get that off my chest, Marv Marvin L French Patron Member, ACBL San Diego, CA From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Nov 14 22:46:14 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:46:14 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > The simplest case of which I can think: > > In ACBL land, the range of opening 1NT bids is to be announced. In ACBL land, the range of opening 1NT bids is also to be written on one's convention card, which is to be displayed (in duplicate, no less) on the table. > Assume that you and your partner have agreed different defenses > based upon > the opponents opening 1NT range. > When the opponents fail to make the required announcement, and your > partner > fails to ask, UI has been created: He does not need to know the > range to make > his systemic bid. No, the information created is only that he does not need to *ask* the range. Perhaps that's because he glanced at their CC when he sat down, or perhaps because he can see it from where he sits. And perhaps he understands that even if you do not at that moment (when he makes his bid) know what the opponents' range is, you too can look at their CC before you need to care. > My conclusion has been that to avoid transmitting UI in this > situation partner must > ask the range of an un-announced opening 1NT But partner must not ask a question to which he knows the answer -- deliberately calling your attention to something he already knows, presumably for your benefit, is a far more grievous offense than transmitting UI, which isn't even an infraction per se -- and the technically "unauthorized" information that he already knows their range without having to ask cannot affect you. My conclusion is very much the reverse, that to be actively ethical, if partner needs to know their notrump range, he should make every attempt to ascertain it *without* asking a question (or doing anything else that would actively call your attention to it). If it would be useful to you to know that partner doesn't care about their notrump range, would it not be equally useful to know that he does? Even if not asking a particular question would necessarily create UI, it doen't follow that asking it wouldn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 14 23:15:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:15:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Knowingly and Unknowingly [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Frederic W. Farrar ? Eric, or, Little by Little (1858) ? author's preface -> The story of "Eric" was written with but one single object ? the vivid inculcation of inward purity and moral purpose, by the history of a boy who, in spite of the inherent nobleness of his disposition, falls into all folly and wickedness, until he has learnt to seek help from above. I am deeply thankful to know ? from testimony public and private, anonymous and acknowledged ? that this object has, by God?s blessing, been fulfilled. The noble Eric, folly in paraphrasing -> [snip] Richard seems to be saying that the organizer can set whatever correction period it chooses, but if it chooses to shorten it rather than lengthen it must make up some arbitrary excuse for doing so. [snip] Richard Hills -> Richard is actually saying that the Tournament Organizer can lengthen the Correction Period to whatever time the Tournament Organizer chooses (indeed, some once-a-week bridge clubs have adopted a Correction Period of seven days). But if the Tournament Organizer chooses to shorten the Correction Period to less than 30 minutes, the Tournament Organizer must have a NON-ARBITRARY REASON (not merely "some arbitrary excuse") for doing so. For example, in a mini-knockout tournament of 16-board matches it is possible that there is only a 15 minute gap between successive matches; in that case a 10 minute Correction Period would be reasonable, not arbitrary. Note that Tournament Organizers and/or Regulating Authorities who subvert the Laws of Bridge and/or subvert the rules of natural justice via "some arbitrary excuse" can now be sued in real-life courts for real-life monetary damages. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111114/fd75ee05/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Tue Nov 15 00:47:07 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:47:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CE713EDA690A61-2040-7EAFD@webmail-d168.sysops.aol.com> [Eric Landau] My conclusion is very much the reverse, that to be actively ethical, if partner needs to know their notrump range, he should make every attempt to ascertain it *without* asking a question (or doing anything else that would actively call your attention to it). [Paul Lamford] I wholeheartedly agree, and this is perhaps the reason why "failure to ask a question" is not included in 16B. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 15 02:18:48 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:18:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] La belle claim sans merci [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Private correspondence with a non-blml octogenarian Canberra expert has caused me to think that the borderline between a claim and a non-claim could perhaps be better defined. In my opinion, this is a non-claim: (1) The famously eccentric English Director and player John (MadDog) Probst once as declarer stuck a card face up on his forehead. Since MadDog was not _intending_ to curtail play, merely _demonstrably_ showing off, he should not be deemed to have claimed. In my opinion, this is a claim: (2) Declarer makes some such statement, while deliberately facing his remaining cards, as "I do not intend to claim. My intention is merely to present you with information that may enable you to defend the rest of this hand more speedily." Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111115/a7239cfd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 15 04:00:49 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:00:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] The laws urgently need integration, completion, disambiguation, and drastic simplification. In past decades Law-makers seem to have been "in denial". Unfortunately, BLMLers are having too much fun discussing subtle legal ramifications, to sympathise with the unnecessary suffering of players. John O'Brien, Said Hanrahan (1921) -> "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, In accents most forlorn, Outside the church, ere Mass began, One frosty Sunday morn. The congregation stood about, Coat-collars to the ears, And talked of stock, and crops, and drought, As it had done for years. "It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad, For never since the banks went broke Has seasons been so bad." "It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, With which astute remark He squatted down upon his heel And chewed a piece of bark. And so around the chorus ran "It's keepin' dry, no doubt." "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." "The crops are done; ye'll have your work To save one bag of grain; From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke They're singin' out for rain. "They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry." The congregation scratched its head, And gazed around the sky. "There won't be grass, in any case, Enough to feed an ass; There's not a blade on Casey's place As I came down to Mass." "If rain don't come this month," said Dan, And cleared his throat to speak - "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week." A heavy silence seemed to steal On all at this remark; And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed a piece of bark. "We want an inch of rain, we do," O'Neil observed at last; But Croke "maintained" we wanted two To put the danger past. "If we don't get three inches, man, Or four to break this drought, We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." In God's good time down came the rain; And all the afternoon On iron roof and window-pane It drummed a homely tune. And through the night it pattered still, And lightsome, gladsome elves On dripping spout and window-sill Kept talking to themselves. It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work, Till every heart took up the song Way out to Back-o'-Bourke. And every creek a banker ran, And dams filled overtop; "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop." And stop it did, in God's good time; And spring came in to fold A mantle o'er the hills sublime Of green and pink and gold. And days went by on dancing feet, With harvest-hopes immense, And laughing eyes beheld the wheat Nid-nodding o'er the fence. And, oh, the smiles on every face, As happy lad and lass Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place Went riding down to Mass. While round the church in clothes genteel Discoursed the men of mark, And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed his piece of bark. "There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, There will, without a doubt; We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111115/54ee1575/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 15 04:02:16 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:02:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com> <8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> On 11/13/2011 7:24 PM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > The lack of a question cannot convey UI, > unless there is a CPU, Refuted elsewhere in the thread, I think. > UI is defined in 16B, and if it is deemed, by a TD or > AC, that failure to ask a question is not of the same type as the > examples therein, then no UI is created. True. I'd say the examples are all "information from partner that may suggest a call or play," but maybe you have a different description of what the examples have in common. The one exception seems to be alerts or failures to alert, where the text goes out of its way to declare these UI only if unexpected. As we saw not so long ago, there is no unanimity on whether expected alerts or non-alerts are UI or AI. > If someone does not ask about an > alerted bid, the only conclusion that can be reached is that she already > knows. > You should act as though partner's bid is consistent with her knowing > the meaning. This might be an enforceable rule, though I'm not sure it's what the Laws actually say. Let's see how it plays out. West opens 1D, alerted. If anyone inquires -- and I'm not specifying that yet -- it will turn out to be artificial and could be zero diamonds. North bids 2D, and East passes. South holds 2=3=3=5 shape and a 9-count. If 2D showed majors, South wants to bid 2H, but if it showed diamonds, South wants to bid 3D. (This is South's bridge judgment, not necessarily yours.) The pair has no prior agreement about defense to artificial 2D. What is South allowed to do if, a) North asked the meaning of 1D, and b) if North did not ask? On 11/14/2011 10:24 AM, Grattan wrote: > It is wrong to > draw any conclusion as to why [North] may not have asked a > question - he may not have needed to ask. It is wrong _for whom_ to draw a conclusion? If it's legal for South to draw a conclusion, he'll be right at least 80% of the time. If it's not legal, why not? That's what this thread is about. On 11/14/2011 2:20 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Let's try yet another example: ... Does > anyone really think this is any less reasonble than Steve's example? My example was taken from real life, and in perhaps a dozen occurrences, I don't recall one where my interpretation failed. That isn't a huge number of cases, and of course my memory may be deficient -- actually, it is deficient in many ways -- but Eric's opposite example isn't how things work in my experience. Once you spot the pattern, it's obvious whether the 2D overcall shows majors or diamonds. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 15 05:36:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:36:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <215F026F733F4567A8CC95809DDE9383@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott -> +=+ **Or he knows the answer. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills -> In theory it is ethical to freely either ask or not ask a relevant question to which one does not know the answer. In practice there were problems many years ago, when the then ABF Alert regulation did not yet require pre-Alerts of 1NT opening bids. Canberra partnerships were then (and are now) approximately equally divided between strong notrumpers and weak notrumpers. So ... The RHO of the Canberra expert Charlie the Chimp would open a weak or strong 1NT, and (a) Charlie would not ask about the 1NT range, then Pass, with close to a yarborough (and Charlie's partner Molly the Mule holding a particular hand would successfully pass throughout) (b) Charlie would ask about the 1NT range, then Pass, with useful values to encourage pard to compete (and Molly holding the same particular hand would successfully compete for the partscore) (c) Charlie would ask about the 1NT range, then bid with a rather marginal overcall (and Molly holding the same particular hand would successfully avoid inviting game) (d) Charlie would not ask about the 1NT range, then bid with a very sound overcall (and Molly holding the same particular hand would successfully force to game) Paul Lamford -> No, if the "absence of a question" is not UI, then you can do what you like. The crucial issue is whether "failure to ask a question" is deemed to be of the same type as the list in 16B. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111115/21822394/attachment.html From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Nov 15 13:58:19 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:58:19 -0600 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: ---------------------------------------- > From: ehaa at starpower.net > Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:46:14 -0500 > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] A Questionable Action > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 6:33 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > > My conclusion has been that to avoid transmitting UI in this > > situation partner must > > ask the range of an un-announced opening 1NT > > But partner must not ask a question to which he knows the answer -- > deliberately calling your attention to something he already knows, > presumably for your benefit, is a far more grievous offense than > transmitting UI, which isn't even an infraction per se -- and the > technically "unauthorized" information that he already knows their > range without having to ask cannot affect you. > > My conclusion is very much the reverse, that to be actively ethical, > if partner needs to know their notrump range, he should make every > attempt to ascertain it *without* asking a question (or doing > anything else that would actively call your attention to it). If it > would be useful to you to know that partner doesn't care about their > notrump range, would it not be equally useful to know that he does? > Even if not asking a particular question would necessarily create UI, > it doen't follow that asking it wouldn't. > > > Eric Landau Indeed. Herculean progress; with somewhat greater than 99.9% remaining. regards roger pewick From gampas at aol.com Tue Nov 15 15:10:24 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:10:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CE71B77426DEC2-1FEC-5B54F@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> [RIchard Hills] The RHO of the Canberra expert Charlie the Chimp would open a weak or strong 1NT, and (a) Charlie would not ask about the 1NT range, then Pass, with close to a yarborough (and Charlie's partner Molly the Mule holding a particular hand would successfully pass throughout) (b) Charlie would ask about the 1NT range, then Pass, with useful values to encourage pard to compete (and Molly holding the same particular hand would successfully compete for the partscore) (c) Charlie would ask about the 1NT range, then bid with a rather marginal overcall (and Molly holding the same particular hand would successfully avoid inviting game) (d) Charlie would not ask about the 1NT range, then bid with a very sound overcall (and Molly holding the same particular hand would successfully force to game) [Paul Lamford] This is is effect an implicit agreement. If it decided that this is so, then all four occasions can be punished, sorry rectified, under 73B. From gampas at aol.com Tue Nov 15 15:16:13 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:16:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> [Steve Willner] What is South allowed to do if, a) North asked the meaning of 1D, and b) if North did not ask? [Paul Lamford] Exactly the same in this and other situations. To treat his partner's call as though his partner was aware of the meaning of 1D. The fact that he asked is UI, the fact that he did not ask is AI (or some would argue, irrelevant UI). If there is a CPU (whether implicit or other) that is different. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 15 15:42:46 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:42:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4EC27A66.4020906@ulb.ac.be> Le 15/11/2011 15:16, gampas at aol.com a ?crit : > [Steve Willner] > What is South allowed to do if, a) North asked the meaning of 1D, and > b) if North did not ask? > > [Paul Lamford] > Exactly the same in this and other situations. To treat his partner's > call as though his partner was aware of the meaning of 1D. The fact > that he asked is UI, AG : I think that this, too, is subject to argument. (but perhaps it has been said before, as I'm jumping in) As with all other cases, only if the reason for asking can be clearly identified is there U (see the wording of UI laws).I. And even in that case it isn't always relevant. Take an example. We play natural overcalls vs 2+ clubs, but T-R-A-P vs strong clubs. They open 1C. They alert. I ask. It's strong. I bid 1D (some 5-card major). The only information partner can possibly have is that I wanted to avoid misunderstanding what happened. Most probably I intended to bid 1 of a major over a natural club. Even if you call it UI, it's clearly irrelevant. Only in the very specific case of asking, then passing, can there be any usable UI. Asking, then acting, only means that one was right to ask. Of course, partner will do as if I knew what I was doing. But what has this to do with possible extraneous information ? Best regards Alain > the fact that he did not ask is AI (or some would > argue, irrelevant UI). If there is a CPU (whether implicit or other) > that is different. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 15 18:52:23 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:52:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <004801cca2bc$71142a00$533c7e00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> References: <004801cca2bc$71142a00$533c7e00$@kooyman@worldonline.nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:59:11 -0500, ton wrote: > Robert: > > SHORT STORY > If retained, L64B7 needs nonobvious correction. However, there seems to > be > no reason to even keep it -- it replaces our (good) method of handling > revokes with a suboptimal method. I can't think of any situation where > it > leads to a fairer ruling. > > ton: > > I consider it possible that you don't think far enough. I guessed that there was some hand that caused people to write L64B7. Thank you very much. Or it could be > that > our ideas of fairness differ. I don't think so. > > A famous example brought to our attention by Herman dW when it happened > in > Belgium (where else?) is the following: > > 6 > -- > 87 > -- > -- 7 > 9 5 > 6 5 > T -- > 84 > 7 > -- > -- > Spades are trumps and West leads H9 ruffed in dummy, overruffed by East > (revoke) and once again overruffed by South (revoke). South wins the last > three tricks. > > According to the old laws South had to pay two penalty tricks. If this is > not a case for a fairer ruling I have to ignore your further remarks on > this > issue. #1 I am not sure why you think this is unfair. If the first revoke caused the second revoke, couldn't you have applied L64C ("Director Responsible for Equity")? I would be glad to hear anyone's comments on that. #2 Otherwise, it would be, without L64B7, two revokes, one with a penalty that redresses damage (one trick penalty for one trick gain) and one that is harsh (two trick penalty for a one trick gain). Isn't that business as usual for revokes? Why is that a problem here and not a problem for the million other revoke hands where the penalty is harsher than needed to redress damage. If you define fairness as the minimal redress needed to ensure that the nonoffending side is not damaged, the existing revoke penalties are often unfair. A more "fair" revoke law would be to have no automatic penalties for revokes and to have the director adjust for equity following every revoke. I assume that the reason you did not change the law to that is because it would be very difficult for directors. It takes a lot of time, and revokes are fairly common. So, that is why I said that the presumably optimal process is the current way of handling revokes. And if you can think of a better way, fine. But then why not use this optimal process, whatever you think it is, for the case of each side revoking? Why switch to a suboptimal process? #3 Note that your example has both revokes occurring at trick 11. That of course is the simplest time to correct for equity. If I change your example to occurring at trick 1, it will not as attractive an example for canceling the revoke penalties. And of course you could change the revoke laws so that all revokes at trick #11 are corrected for equity only. If you think that is better. #4 If you are not convinced by any of these arguments -- shouldn't you change L64B7 to when both revokes occur on the same trick? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 15 19:01:56 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:01:56 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:56:56 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: "Sven Pran" >> > Robert Frick >> > So, using your words, there are no penalty tricks for the revokes. >> > Neither player gained from the revoke (assuming equity for the >> > second revoke is determined in reference to the situation before the >> > second revoke). So there is no correction for equity. So declarer >> > keeps his 10 tricks. Right? >> >> [Sven Pran] When both sides have revoked on the same board then equity >> is determined to the situation before the first revoke for all revokes >> on that board. > > Peter: > No, Sven, sigh ... > > Sao Paulo, 8 September 2009 > "Nr.7: When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 > and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity > when that revoke occurs." > > But, Bob's story was about > Declarer was on his way to 9 tricks ... the 1st revoke by defender > did not give them any advantage ... the 2nd revoke by declarer > got his side a trick. > > Therefore no penalty tricks (Law 64 B7) and 9 tricks to declarer > which was equity before the 1st and before the 2nd revoke. > > Basta ... from my side. I would be very glad to hear if there was any legitimate way to get to Peter's (and apparently everyone else's) ruling. Assume the contract is 3S. Without the second revoke, Declarer gets +170. With the second revoke, Declarer gets +170. So there was no gain from the second revoke and no damage to the opponents. Is there some other way of analyzing it? Besides lumping the two revokes together, which we know isn't right. Or somehow saying that the situation prior to the second revoke is +140, but we know that isn't true AND it yields the wrong answer when the second revoke is by the defenders in the same suit and gains a trick in play. From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Wed Nov 16 03:29:14 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:29:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 Message-ID: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? About 3 weeks ago I came across the following Revoke case: ? - Teams. Fifth board of the match. Contract: 6NT by South. At one point, declarer cashes diamonds and East does not follow suit. Two tricks later, declarer claims for down one. ? - After the match, South complains within the Protest time that East had revoked in diamonds. Opponents deny having revoked at the time. ? - TD?s ruling: 6NT made - L64C (Director Responsible for Equity)? The ruling, which seems to be officially correct, is different than the one I would consider. ? My argument: ? Law 64C: "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification,..." ? a) Laws Provisions (1) ? Law 64B deals with 7 cases of revoke not subject to rectification. In one case (64B2) is specified that "Law 64C may apply." My understanding is that if the intention/interpretation is to apply 64C to all 7 cases, the WBFLC will not make this specification only to 64B2. ? b) Law Provisions (2) - Stating the established revoke ? Law 64C doesn't say anything about a revoke which is not proven that happened. ? For the cases 64B 4&5, I would not call the revoke established but rather 'alleged established'. ? Even if it was clear that we may apply Law 64C also in these cases, I believe that first the director should find out beyond reasonable doubt that the revoke occurred. ? c) Equity - A different aspect of Fairness ? There will be cases when the director would not be able to prove the revoke (the alleged offending side doesn't remember the play, or each side presents a different line of play - both lines plausible). Whom do we believe? ? E.g. North plays 4S. On the 3rd round of trumps West discards a club - declarer does not pay attention. Soon after that, declarer plays on clubs which originally break 4-3-3-3 with dummy having 4. Since West has left only 2 clubs to follow suit declarer thinks the last club is not high and misses making a trick. Within the Protest time, declarer complains in good faith that West revoked. E-W also in good faith cannot remember the play. ? d) The spirit of laws Consistency ? One principle of the Laws is to prevent players from gaining unearned scores. ? Law 79B2: "...there should be no obligation 'to increase a side's score'..." Law 79C2: "...if the TD and the TO are both satisfied 'beyond reasonable doubt'..." ? If players can lie (with opponents' consent) about score, they also can make up a credible revoke in order to get a better score. ? Thanks for your feedback, Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/f442ffec/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 16 04:57:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:57:55 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Law 64C, Director Responsible for Equity -> When, after ***any*** established revoke, ***including*** those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the ***damage*** caused, he ***shall*** assign an adjusted score. Anda Enciu -> [snip] I would not call the revoke established but rather 'alleged established'. Even if it was clear that we may apply Law 64C also in these cases, I believe that first the director should find out beyond reasonable doubt that the revoke occurred. [snip] Richard Hills -> Yes and No. The relevant Law for disputed facts, Law 85, does not require the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" but rather requires the lesser standard of "balance of probabilities". So, after collecting evidence from both sides and also collecting objective evidence (for example, the hand record may suggest that 6NT was very unlikely to fail without a revoke), the Director may legitimately rule that a revoke has occurred. After the Director has used Law 85 to deem that a revoke occurred, it is very clear that the Director shall then adjust the score under Law 64C. Anda Enciu -> [snip] they also can make up a credible revoke in order to get a better score. Thanks for your feedback, Anda Feedback from the Introduction to the Lawbook, third sentence -> Players should be ready to accept ***gracefully*** any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/19fefcd3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 16 06:09:48 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:09:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Law 16A1(d) -> A player may use information in the auction or play if: it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information. Steve Willner -> [snip] The one exception seems to be alerts or failures to alert, where the text goes out of its way to declare these UI only if unexpected. As we saw not so long ago, there is no unanimity on whether expected alerts or non-alerts are UI or AI. [snip] Richard Hills -> To my mind Law 16A1(d) means that there should be unanimity that expected alerts and expected non-alerts are AI. That is, to my mind Law 16A1(d) legalises an AI presumption that both partners have remembered their pre-agreed(1) methods. Of course that initial presumption from an expected alert could be over-ridden by a later unexpected alert, in which case Law 16A1(d) would be over-ridden by Law 75A. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) Partnership methods pre-agreed before taking their hands from the board. Many Regulating Authorities prohibit major changes of method during a session, but most Regulating Authorities permit minor tweaks to partnership methods during a session which result from a post-mortem after a debacle. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111116/f25ac196/attachment.html From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Wed Nov 16 12:16:06 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:16:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> Message-ID: If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you make a bid > over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A and hand Y > over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know whether it > was A or B suggest either X or Y? > Doesn't your argument here assume that X intersect Y is empty? If not why isn't it a reasonable alternative conclusion that your action has the same meaning in both cases but some other action you failed to take would have different meanings after A than after B. Thanks Collins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/84abd7f9/attachment.html From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Wed Nov 16 12:30:31 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:30:31 -0500 Subject: [BLML] La belle claim sans merci [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > > In my opinion, this is a claim: > > (2) Declarer makes some such statement, while deliberately facing his > remaining cards, as "I do not intend to claim. My intention is merely to > present you with information that may enable you to defend the rest of this > hand more speedily." > > I would agree with you except that I can't answer this question. "How many tricks did declarer claim? " Collins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/073a827c/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 16 14:50:26 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:50:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Collins Williams wrote: >> If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you make a bid >> over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A and hand Y >> over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know whether it >> was A or B suggest either X or Y? > > Doesn't your argument here assume that X intersect Y is empty? > If not why isn't it a reasonable alternative conclusion that your > action > has the same meaning in both cases but some other action you failed > to take would have different meanings after A than after B. If it has the same meaning in both cases, partner will always know what you have, so the EI that you would have made the same call over some alternative meaning of the opponent's bid wouldn't suggest anything that might affect partner's subsequent action. The key point, though, is that partner has no way to know that you have chosen your call in ignorance of whether the bid meant A or B; his natural assumption is that you know which it was, even if he doesn't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Wed Nov 16 15:41:49 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:41:49 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> Anda Encu draws attention to another problematic area of the law. Recently, I suspected a possible revoke by an opponent. On completion of play, I politely asked the opponent if he would mind exposing his cards but he refused. I believe he has a right to do this, in law. Then I called the director, explaining my concern. I was mistaken. There was no revoke. This kind of occurrence underlines Anda?s point. I think it would help if the law obliged an opponent to show you his hand on request, as a matter of routine. Rather than leave you to agonise over a mental reconstruction of the deal before, eventually, calling the director. Of course, I accept that brilliant BLMLers may have trouble even imagining such difficulties. But my concern is with the tribulations of ordinary players. In many cases, seeing the hand will save him subsequent worry. Incidentally, the current revoke laws is too weak. At club-level, many revokes go unnoticed, unreported, and unrectified. A revoke is often the only way to make or defeat a contract, so is easy for the unscrupulous to rationalize. Often, effectively, a revoke is a ?shot at nothing? to make or defeat a contract. Currently, ?rectification? is the worst outcome the that law-breaker can expect. In a few cases, there is a small deterrent element build into the ?rectification?, usually dwarfed by the potential reward to the law-breaker. In summary, IMO ... - There should be a legal obligation to call attention to your own revoke. - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request. And - The penalty for a revoke should be draconian e.g. lose that trick and all subsequent tricks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/2c1c951e/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Nov 16 16:03:10 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:03:10 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> Message-ID: <0CC5A44FCC5E4A1B9D68B10DA5C31E28@changeme1> Never have liked the latest revoke change. There does need to be a possible penalty involved, as per previous law book. Winner-to-nothing is easily manipulated and hard to prove. L [snip] Incidentally, the current revoke laws is too weak. At club-level, many revokes go unnoticed, unreported, and unrectified. A revoke is often the only way to make or defeat a contract, so is easy for the unscrupulous to rationalize. Often, effectively, a revoke is a ?shot at nothing? to make or defeat a contract. Currently, ?rectification? is the worst outcome the that law-breaker can expect. In a few cases, there is a small deterrent element build into the ?rectification?, usually dwarfed by the potential reward to the law-breaker. In summary, IMO ... - There should be a legal obligation to call attention to your own revoke. - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request. And - The penalty for a revoke should be draconian e.g. lose that trick and all subsequent tricks. From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 16 16:50:22 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:50:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> Message-ID: <001601cca477$73fce9c0$5bf6bd40$@online.no> See Law 66D. Your opponent was wrong, he must expose all his cards on request from another player at the table. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Nigel Guthrie Sendt: 16. november 2011 15:42 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 Anda Encu draws attention to another problematic area of the law. Recently, I suspected a possible revoke by an opponent. On completion of play, I politely asked the opponent if he would mind exposing his cards but he refused. I believe he has a right to do this, in law. Then I called the director, explaining my concern. I was mistaken. There was no revoke. This kind of occurrence underlines Anda?s point. I think it would help if the law obliged an opponent to show you his hand on request, as a matter of routine. Rather than leave you to agonise over a mental reconstruction of the deal before, eventually, calling the director. Of course, I accept that brilliant BLMLers may have trouble even imagining such difficulties. But my concern is with the tribulations of ordinary players. In many cases, seeing the hand will save him subsequent worry. Incidentally, the current revoke laws is too weak. At club-level, many revokes go unnoticed, unreported, and unrectified. A revoke is often the only way to make or defeat a contract, so is easy for the unscrupulous to rationalize. Often, effectively, a revoke is a ?shot at nothing? to make or defeat a contract. Currently, ?rectification? is the worst outcome the that law-breaker can expect. In a few cases, there is a small deterrent element build into the ?rectification?, usually dwarfed by the potential reward to the law-breaker. In summary, IMO ... - There should be a legal obligation to call attention to your own revoke. - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request. And - The penalty for a revoke should be draconian e.g. lose that trick and all subsequent tricks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/42fb4d85/attachment-0001.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 16 16:56:57 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:56:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> Message-ID: <4EC3DD49.8030007@ulb.ac.be> Le 16/11/2011 15:41, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Anda Encu draws attention to another problematic area of the law. > Recently, I suspected a possible revoke by an opponent. On completion > of play, I politely asked the opponent if he would mind exposing his > cards but he refused. I believe he has a right to do this, in law. > Then I called the director, explaining my concern. I was mistaken. > There was no revoke. This kind of occurrence underlines Anda's point. > I think it would help if the law obliged an opponent to show you his > hand on request, as a matter of routine. Rather than leave you to > agonise over a mental reconstruction of the deal before, eventually, > calling the director. Of course, I accept that brilliant BLMLers may > have trouble even imagining such difficulties. But my concern is with > the tribulations of ordinary players. In many cases, seeing the hand > will save him subsequent worry. > Incidentally, the current revoke laws is too weak. At club-level, many > revokes go unnoticed, unreported, and unrectified. A revoke is often > the only way to make or defeat a contract, so is easy for the > unscrupulous to rationalize. Often, effectively, a revoke is a "shot > at nothing" to make or defeat a contract. Currently, "rectification" > is the worst outcome the that law-breaker can expect. In a few cases, > there is a small deterrent element build into the "rectification", > usually dwarfed by the potential reward to the law-breaker. In > summary, IMO AG : I beg to differ : > ... > - There should be a legal obligation to call attention to your own > revoke. AG : one should avoid laws that are impossible to enforce, because they would increase the advantages the crokks can get. > - You should be allowed to see an opponent's hand, on request. AG : aren't you, after the deal, on request ? Or do you mean that one could see one's opponent's hand during the play ? > And > - The penalty for a revoke should be draconian e.g. lose that trick > and all subsequent tricks. AG : I've seen players desert the game for less than that. And this would increase the benefits of concealing one's revoke. In fact, the old rule was enough of a deterrent. It seems like it has been changed to make things simpler, but perhaps this wasn't the most important. Best regards Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111116/0e3c7aec/attachment.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Wed Nov 16 17:55:32 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:55:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> Message-ID: <1321462532.15086.YahooMailNeo@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? Nigel Guthrie -> ? I think it would help if the law obliged an opponent to show you his hand on request, as a matter of routine. ? The right procedure is to announce the opponent that you suspect a revoke. The moment you do that, Law 66 D applies, the opponent may show his cards to settle the problem or the TD is called. ? Nigel Guthrie -> ? - There should be a legal obligation to call attention to your own revoke. ? Not too much gain out of this. Most of the honest players will not realize they made a revoke and the law-breakers will not admit they are aware of revoking. ? Nigel Guthrie -> - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request. ? Law 66 D allows that in 2 cases: to settle the claim of a revoke or the number of tricks won/lost. Another reason for seeing opps?cards is post-mortems, which is one of TD?s worst enemies. ? Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/7f47ae69/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Nov 16 19:11:35 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:11:35 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <001601cca477$73fce9c0$5bf6bd40$@online.no> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> <001601cca477$73fce9c0$5bf6bd40$@online.no> Message-ID: <02F7E9AA55BD4052AA9CFCA45DE9C450@G3> [Sven Pran] See Law 66D. Your opponent was wrong, he must expose all his cards on request from another player at the table. [TFLB L66D] After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side. {Nige1] Thank you Sven for putting me right! I got my wrong impression from an incident at Brighton, last year, when, at the end of play, my partner asked to see an opponent?s hand to check for possible use of UI from the other opponent. Presumably, under these quite different circumstances, it is OK for the opponent to demur. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/98c42509/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Nov 16 20:42:21 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:42:21 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <1321462532.15086.YahooMailNeo@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> <1321462532.15086.YahooMailNeo@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <801A29A0CDBA4079A9A46F57D562957E@G3> [Nigel Guthrie] - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request, as a matter of routine. [Anda Enciu] Law 66 D allows that in 2 cases: to settle the claim of a revoke or the number of tricks won/lost. Another reason for seeing opps?cards is post-mortems, which is one of TD?s worst enemies. [Nige1] I concede Anda?s other arguments (for example that it would be a bit pointless to insist that players call attention to their own infractions). But I?m doubtful about this. I agree that curbing post-mortems is important but that can be dealt with separately. I?m glad to learn that the law allows you to see an opponent?s hand in 2 cases but I think there are *other* cases e.g. - When an opponent claims the remaining tricks. - When you suspect possible damage from an infraction like use of UI. Having a routine right to see an opponent?s hand would be be less invidious and save time by avoiding a director call. In Anda?s original example, why was declarer reluctant to ask his opponent to show his cards, at the time? Perhaps, because he did not want to explain his reason for wanting to do so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/444b38bf/attachment-0001.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 16 22:09:15 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:09:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <801A29A0CDBA4079A9A46F57D562957E@G3> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> <1321462532.15086.YahooMailNeo@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <801A29A0CDBA4079A9A46F57D562957E@G3> Message-ID: <004501cca4a3$ff74f020$fe5ed060$@online.no> In a claim situation you can simply contest the claim and the claimer must face all his cards. If you suspect an irregularity you simply call the director with your suspicion and let him sort things out. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Nigel Guthrie Sendt: 16. november 2011 20:42 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 [Nigel Guthrie] - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request, as a matter of routine. [Anda Enciu] Law 66 D allows that in 2 cases: to settle the claim of a revoke or the number of tricks won/lost. Another reason for seeing opps?cards is post-mortems, which is one of TD?s worst enemies. [Nige1] I concede Anda?s other arguments (for example that it would be a bit pointless to insist that players call attention to their own infractions). But I?m doubtful about this. I agree that curbing post-mortems is important but that can be dealt with separately. I?m glad to learn that the law allows you to see an opponent?s hand in 2 cases but I think there are *other* cases e.g. - When an opponent claims the remaining tricks. - When you suspect possible damage from an infraction like use of UI. Having a routine right to see an opponent?s hand would be be less invidious and save time by avoiding a director call. In Anda?s original example, why was declarer reluctant to ask his opponent to show his cards, at the time? Perhaps, because he did not want to explain his reason for wanting to do so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/068d4f3d/attachment.html From geller at nifty.com Wed Nov 16 22:32:47 2011 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 06:32:47 +0900 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <004501cca4a3$ff74f020$fe5ed060$@online.no> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> <1321462532.15086.YahooMailNeo@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <801A29A0CDBA4079A9A46F57D562957E@G3> <004501cca4a3$ff74f020$fe5ed060$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EC42BFF.2000207@nifty.com> But how about the following case. Suppose a defender concedes the rest of the tricks to declarer and refuses to show his hand to declarer. There is nothing for declarer to contest, so reading the laws literally as now written the defender cam refuse to show his hand. (Of course you might argue that declarer could say he wants to see the defender's hands to see whether or not there was a revoke, but suppose from the play of the cards there was no possibility of a revoke; then this option is out.) So I support Nigel's propsal. (2011/11/17 6:09), Sven Pran wrote: > In a claim situation you can simply contest the claim and the claimer > must face all his cards. > > If you suspect an irregularity you simply call the director with your > suspicion and let him sort things out. > > *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne > av* Nigel Guthrie > *Sendt:* 16. november 2011 20:42 > *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Emne:* Re: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 > > [Nigel Guthrie] > - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request, as a > matter of routine. > > [Anda Enciu] > > Law 66 D allows that in 2 cases: to settle the claim of a revoke or the > number > of tricks won/lost. Another reason for seeing opps?cards is > post-mortems, which is > > one of TD?s worst enemies. > > [Nige1] > > I concede Anda?s other arguments (for example that it would be a bit > pointless to insist that players call attention to their own > infractions). But I?m doubtful about this. I agree that curbing > post-mortems is important but that can be dealt with separately. > > I?m glad to learn that the law allows you to see an opponent?s hand in 2 > cases but I think there are *other* cases e.g. > > - When an opponent claims the remaining tricks. > > - When you suspect possible damage from an infraction like use of UI. > > Having a routine right to see an opponent?s hand would be be less > invidious and save time by avoiding a director call. In Anda?s original > example, why was declarer reluctant to ask his opponent to show his > cards, at the time? Perhaps, because he did not want to explain his > reason for wanting to do so? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 16 22:38:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:38:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B3 (was Law 64C and Law 64B4 & 5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004501cca4a3$ff74f020$fe5ed060$@online.no> Message-ID: Law 16B3 -> When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director [snip] Sven Pran -> [snip] If you suspect an irregularity you simply call the director with your suspicion and let him sort things out. Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] - When you suspect possible damage from an infraction like use of UI. Having a routine right to see an opponent?s hand would be less invidious and save time by avoiding a director call. [snip] Richard Hills -> In my experience as a Director, players directly implying that other players have ch**t*d does not save time, as a heated argument erupts. A neutral Law 16B3 call of "Director!" saves time in the long run. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111116/9d8f7bad/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 17 01:12:07 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:12:07 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B3 (was Law 64C and Law 64B4 & 5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5697E928BE294793ADFADA7CA9A9504F@G3> [Nige1] ... Having a routine right to see an opponent?s hand would be less invidious and save time by avoiding a director call ... [Sven Pran] If you suspect an irregularity you simply call the director with your suspicion and let him sort things out. [Richard Hills] In my experience as a Director, players directly implying that other players have ch**t*d does not save time, as a heated argument erupts. A neutral Law 16B3 call of "Director!" saves time in the long run. [Nige2] I think I catch Richard's drift. Lets rehearse a couple of the relevant previous examples, where an opponent has no obligation to comply with your request to show his hand. Please also remember that your presumed roll is as an ordinary player not as a brilliant BLMLer. - An opponent bids after his partner's agreed hesitation. At the end of play, to judge if you may have been damaged by possible use of UI, you need to look at opponent's hand. Presumably, you must always call the director and claim damage. - You can't verify opponent's claim statement without seeing declarer's hand. Presumably, you must always dispute the claim and call the director. If this is a match in a private home, then you may need to 'phone up a director several times. I think I understand where Richard is coming from. But even if this is great for director employment (in the short-term), it's tedious for players. [TFLB L16B3] When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director [TFLB L68B] Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks... [TFLB L78C] A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 17 01:18:22 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:18:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B3 (was Law 64C and Law 64B4 & 5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5697E928BE294793ADFADA7CA9A9504F@G3> References: <5697E928BE294793ADFADA7CA9A9504F@G3> Message-ID: <6203B73252BD46C0BE5E922F762CB853@G3> I meant "role" :( From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Thu Nov 17 02:27:02 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:27:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1321493222.63839.YahooMailNeo@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? Richard Hills -> ? Yes and No. ...After the Director has used Law 85 to deem that a revoke occurred, it is very clear that the Director shall then adjust the score under Law 64C. ? Anda Enciu -> ? Thanks Richard. It wasn?t clear for me that Law 85 - Ruling on disputed facts, applies also to the 'protest period'. The end of Law 85B - Facts Not Determined (".., he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue") misled me to the impression that this law applies only during the play. ? This explains how within the protest period an alleged revoke may become an established revoke. ? Still, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. ? (a) Hand played through, no one made any remark about a possible revoke - If one is incapable of realizing in time that a revoke occurred, I would not give him credit much later (within the protest period), even though the opponents agree having revoked. ? After a claim - Nigel and Swen have a point. (b) If one is alert, he asks seeing opps' cards/calls TD which eliminates the possibility of a late protest. ? (c) If one is careless and doesn?t ask or call the TD, does he deserve the benefit of considering his complaint and applying L64C within the protest time? Imo no. I keep in mind that most probably the alleged NOS will be more experienced than the alleged OS. ? So actually, only in case (c) might be a need to apply 64C. Wouldn?t be easier, fairer and more educative if 64C doesn?t apply to 64B 4&5? ? Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/bc94fa41/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Nov 17 02:58:42 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:58:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <4EC42BFF.2000207@nifty.com> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> <1321462532.15086.YahooMailNeo@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <801A29A0CDBA4079A9A46F57D562957E@G3> <004501cca4a3$ff74f020$fe5ed060$@online.no> <4EC42BFF.2000207@nifty.com> Message-ID: "Robert Geller" writes: >But how about the following case. Suppose a defender concedes the rest >of the tricks to declarer and refuses to show his hand to declarer. >There is nothing for declarer to contest, so reading the laws literally >as now written the defender cam refuse to show his hand. (Of course you >might argue that declarer could say he wants to see the defender's hands >to see whether or not there was a revoke, but suppose from the play of >the cards there was no possibility of a revoke; then this option is out.) Declarer might also want to see the cards to avoid accepting a concession of a trick that he could not win. From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Nov 17 02:59:35 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:59:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B3 (was Law 64C and Law 64B4 & 5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5697E928BE294793ADFADA7CA9A9504F@G3> References: <5697E928BE294793ADFADA7CA9A9504F@G3> Message-ID: <4EC46A87.1020909@comcast.net> On 11/16/11 7:12 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [TFLB L16B3] > When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a > logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by > such information, he should summon the Director Why is the word "substantial" in this law? I would like to see opponent's hand when I have just a little suspicion that UI might have affected his call. Usually it hasn't, and the director then need not be called. Seems more efficient and with fewer hard feelings than forcing me to call the director for what turns out to be nothing. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 17 04:00:13 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> On 11/14/2011 1:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Before the second revoke, equity was 10 tricks to declarer. Right: 9 tricks in play plus the penalty trick to come. The second revoke cancels the penalty trick, and L64C takes away any tricks gained from the second revoke. > (That is > exactly how we would calculate it if the defending side had made the > second revoke.) That's how I'd calculate it, but I think not everyone agrees. > I would love to be able to say this ruling was actually ambiguous There are plenty of ambiguities in TFLB, but this isn't one of them. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 17 04:06:04 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:06:04 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> > [Steve Willner] > What is South allowed to do if, a) North asked the meaning of 1D, and > b) if North did not ask? On 11/15/2011 9:16 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > Exactly the same in this and other situations. To treat his partner's > call as though his partner was aware of the meaning of 1D. The fact > that he asked is UI, the fact that he did not ask is AI (or some would > argue, irrelevant UI). Sorry, I don't understand this answer. Let's try to be more specific: a) North asked about 1D and then bid 2D, which we now know is natural. Is 2H by South legal? Is 3D by South legal? b) North did not ask about 1D, which tells us that 2D shows the majors. Same two questions. > If there is a CPU (whether implicit or other) that is different. I don't understand this either. Everyone at the table knows what it means to ask or not ask, so even if you think there's an understanding -- and NS have had no prior discussion -- it's not concealed. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 17 04:18:42 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:18:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B3 (was Law 64C and Law 64B4 & 5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5697E928BE294793ADFADA7CA9A9504F@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie, flawed scenario -> [snip] Please also remember that your presumed role is as an ordinary player not as a brilliant BLMLer. - An opponent bids after his partner's agreed hesitation. At the end of play, to judge if you may have been damaged by possible use of UI, you need to look at opponent's hand. Presumably, you must always call the director and claim damage. [snip] Richard Hills, refuting scenario -> Must always??? As an ordinary player you are easily able to remember significant cards played by your three opponents. So at the end of play it is equally easy for you to judge that you have not been damaged by possible use of UI. No damage, no summoning of the Director. Law 16B3 -> When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends. [snip] Robert Park, definitional question -> Why is the word "substantial" in this law? I would like to see opponent's hand when I have just a little suspicion that UI might have affected his call. Usually it hasn't, and the director then need not be called. Seems more efficient and with fewer hard feelings than forcing me to call the director for what turns out to be nothing. 1997 Lawbook, footnote defining "substantial reason to believe" -> When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed. Richard Hills, definitional answer -> In my opinion this 1997 footnote was deleted from the 2007 Lawbook to prevent unnecessary summoning of the Director when dummy was first exposed. That is, even if dummy infracted Law 16B / Law 73C it is possible that at the end of play the declaring side's score of -7600 means that the defending side has not been damaged due to them gaining the +7600 reciprocal score. :-) :-) No damage, no summoning of the Director. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/b7d660bf/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Nov 17 05:26:34 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:26:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <4EC42BFF.2000207@nifty.com> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> <1321462532.15086.YahooMailNeo@web65415.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <801A29A0CDBA4079A9A46F57D562957E@G3> <004501cca4a3$ff74f020$fe5ed060$@online.no> <4EC42BFF.2000207@nifty.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:32:47 -0500, Robert Geller wrote: > But how about the following case. Suppose a defender concedes the rest > of the tricks to declarer and refuses to show his hand to declarer. > There is nothing for declarer to contest, so reading the laws literally > as now written the defender cam refuse to show his hand. (Of course you > might argue that declarer could say he wants to see the defender's hands > to see whether or not there was a revoke, but suppose from the play of > the cards there was no possibility of a revoke; then this option is out.) > > So I support Nigel's propsal. Me too. Additionally, suppose there was a revoke. Opponent might notice if the hands are faced, even if they didn't think of the possibility. Or, if the hands are faced, the opponents have even less reason to argue that there was a revoke after the cards are returned to the board. And right, I would much rather say "May I see your hand" than "May I see your hand to check if you revoked". What could be bad about this change? > > (2011/11/17 6:09), Sven Pran wrote: >> In a claim situation you can simply contest the claim and the claimer >> must face all his cards. >> >> If you suspect an irregularity you simply call the director with your >> suspicion and let him sort things out. >> >> *Fra:*blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] *P? vegne >> av* Nigel Guthrie >> *Sendt:* 16. november 2011 20:42 >> *Til:* Bridge Laws Mailing List >> *Emne:* Re: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 >> >> [Nigel Guthrie] >> - You should be allowed to see an opponent?s hand, on request, as a >> matter of routine. >> >> [Anda Enciu] >> >> Law 66 D allows that in 2 cases: to settle the claim of a revoke or the >> number >> of tricks won/lost. Another reason for seeing opps?cards is >> post-mortems, which is >> >> one of TD?s worst enemies. >> >> [Nige1] >> >> I concede Anda?s other arguments (for example that it would be a bit >> pointless to insist that players call attention to their own >> infractions). But I?m doubtful about this. I agree that curbing >> post-mortems is important but that can be dealt with separately. >> >> I?m glad to learn that the law allows you to see an opponent?s hand in 2 >> cases but I think there are *other* cases e.g. >> >> - When an opponent claims the remaining tricks. >> >> - When you suspect possible damage from an infraction like use of UI. >> >> Having a routine right to see an opponent?s hand would be be less >> invidious and save time by avoiding a director call. In Anda?s original >> example, why was declarer reluctant to ask his opponent to show his >> cards, at the time? Perhaps, because he did not want to explain his >> reason for wanting to do so? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 17 06:19:09 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:19:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1321493222.63839.YahooMailNeo@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anda Enciu -> Thanks Richard. It wasn?t clear for me that Law 85 - Ruling on disputed facts, applies also to the 'protest period'. The end of Law 85B - Facts Not Determined (".., he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue") misled me to the impression that this law applies only during the play. Richard Hills -> If the Director determines that the disputed alleged facts are of identical weight (a rare occurrence) and the session has already concluded, then in my humble opinion the end of Law 85B "he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue" is shortened to "he makes a ruling". Joan Baez, 29th February 2004 -> I've never had a humble opinion. If you've got an opinion, why be humble about it? Anda Enciu -> This explains how within the protest period an alleged revoke may become an established revoke. Still, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (a) Hand played through, no one made any remark about a possible revoke - If one is incapable of realizing in time that a revoke occurred, I would not give him credit much later (within the protest period), even though the opponents agree having revoked. Richard Hills -> For duplicate bridge in Canberra, even the lowliest session has computer deals and hand records. So it is very plausible that a declarer may not recognise an opponent's revoke at the table, but may be later prompted by inspection of the hand record. Anda Enciu -> After a claim - Nigel and Sven have a point. (b) If one is alert, he asks seeing opps' cards/calls TD which eliminates the possibility of a late protest. (c) If one is careless and doesn?t ask or call the TD, does he deserve the benefit of considering his complaint and applying L64C within the protest time? Imo no. Richard Hills -> The pejorative word "deserve" has no place in a discussion of the current (1) Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If a player is entitled by Law to a particular ruling, it is irrelevant whether or not that player "deserves" that ruling. Anda Enciu -> I keep in mind that most probably the alleged NOS will be more experienced than the alleged OS. [snip] Richard Hills -> Yes and No. Experienced players have a greater responsibility to avoid reckless infractions, so consequently Procedural Penalties will be more severe for experienced players than for inexperienced players. But if an inexperienced player's infraction damages an experienced player, a Director refusing to adjust the score would be perpetrating a Director's Error category mistake; politeness to inexperienced players does not extend to letting them freely break the rules. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) However, "deserve" is relevant to a discussion of what the 2018 Laws of Duplicate Bridge should say. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111117/4f1d330f/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 17 12:22:33 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:22:33 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B3 (was Law 64C and Law 64B4 & 5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] As an ordinary player you are easily able to remember significant cards played by your three opponents. So at the end of play it is equally easy for you to judge that you have not been damaged by possible use of UI. No damage, no summoning of the Director. [Nige1] To forestall this kind of dismissal was the reason for my argument caveat: "not brilliant BLMLers but ordinary players". I play in a different milieu from Richard. I confess that club-players in my circle have trouble recollecting the details of a board. Sometimes, in post-mortem discussion, we have a vague suspicion that we accepted a faulty claim or there has been a revoke or use of UI. I agree with Anda that a lot of our suspicions are probably unfounded. At the time, however, we could easily have resolved such concerns by looking at an opponent's hand. Of course, I accept that this scenario is hard for Richard to imagine. From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Nov 17 14:03:08 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:03:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > > >> If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you make a bid > >> over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A and hand Y > >> over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know whether it > >> was A or B suggest either X or Y? > > > > Doesn't your argument here assume that X intersect Y is empty? > > If not why isn't it a reasonable alternative conclusion that your > > action > > has the same meaning in both cases but some other action you failed > > to take would have different meanings after A than after B. > > If it has the same meaning in both cases, partner will always know > what you have, so the EI that you would have made the same call over > some alternative meaning of the opponent's bid wouldn't suggest > anything that might affect partner's subsequent action. The key > point, though, is that partner has no way to know that you have > chosen your call in ignorance of whether the bid meant A or B; his > natural assumption is that you know which it was, even if he doesn't. > > I should be more precise. You are playing method X over opponent's agreement A and method Y over opponent's agreement B. A call from method X and a call from method Y have overlapping but not identical meanings. In this case, doesn't partners failure to ask imply that his hand comes from the the intersection of its two definitions? Isn't that quantifiable extra information? Collins > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/7b2312f5/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 17 14:26:51 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:26:51 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4EC50B9B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/11/2011 14:03, Collins Williams a ?crit : > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > > >> If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you make a bid > >> over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A and > hand Y > >> over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know whether it > >> was A or B suggest either X or Y? > > > > Doesn't your argument here assume that X intersect Y is empty? > > If not why isn't it a reasonable alternative conclusion that your > > action > > has the same meaning in both cases but some other action you failed > > to take would have different meanings after A than after B. > > If it has the same meaning in both cases, partner will always know > what you have, so the EI that you would have made the same call over > some alternative meaning of the opponent's bid wouldn't suggest > anything that might affect partner's subsequent action. The key > point, though, is that partner has no way to know that you have > chosen your call in ignorance of whether the bid meant A or B; his > natural assumption is that you know which it was, even if he doesn't. > > I should be more precise. You are playing method X over opponent's > agreement A and method Y over opponent's agreement B. > A call from method X and a call from method Y have overlapping but not > identical meanings. > In this case, doesn't partners failure to ask imply that his hand > comes from the the intersection of its two definitions? > Isn't that quantifiable extra information? > > AG : this is an interesting situation. One might mention 1C -> 2C natural over 2+ but 1C-> 2C = minors over strong club. I think that the word "demonstrably" is the key here. The implication is very light, because there are other possible explanaitons for the (non-)fact. For example, partner might have remembered their system, or looked at their CC. Also, if asking, then bidding gives out non-allowed information, and not asking, then bidding, does too, there is a something rotten. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/9a124b33/attachment.html From gampas at aol.com Thu Nov 17 14:56:25 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:56:25 +0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4EC51289.2070506@aol.com> On 17/11/2011 03:06, Steve Willner wrote: Everyone at the table knows what it means to ask or not ask [Paul Lamford] You must live in a cheat's paradise. In the circles in which I play, everyone treats partner's call with exactly the same meaning whether he asked or did not ask. In your example, if 2D is the majors over 1D, then it is that whether or not one asks. If 2D is systemically natural, it is that. The infraction would be using the question or lack of a question to "communicate", and if someone treated 2D as natural because of the question, when it was systemically Michaels, then that would be evidence of illegal communication under 73B. On 17/11/2011 03:06, Steve Willner wrote: Sorry, I don't understand this answer. I don't understand this either. [Paul Lamford] 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/d5e01432/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 17 15:23:38 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:23:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <57009672-59DA-4C3C-B5F3-0359E614BEFC@starpower.net> On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Steve Willner wrote: >> [Steve Willner] >> What is South allowed to do if, a) North asked the meaning of 1D, and >> b) if North did not ask? > > On 11/15/2011 9:16 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> Exactly the same in this and other situations. To treat his partner's >> call as though his partner was aware of the meaning of 1D. The fact >> that he asked is UI, the fact that he did not ask is AI (or some >> would >> argue, irrelevant UI). > > Sorry, I don't understand this answer. Let's try to be more specific: > a) North asked about 1D and then bid 2D, which we now know is natural. > Is 2H by South legal? Is 3D by South legal? > > b) North did not ask about 1D, which tells us that 2D shows the > majors. > Same two questions. > >> If there is a CPU (whether implicit or other) that is different. > > I don't understand this either. Everyone at the table knows what it > means to ask or not ask, so even if you think there's an understanding > -- and NS have had no prior discussion -- it's not concealed. If when North bids 2D after asking about 1D "we now know [it] is natural", and when North bids 2D without asking it "shows the majors", I'd call that a prima facie violation of L73B2, "the gravest possible offense" in TFLB. Neither that the "prearrangement" may have been effected by "general knowledge" rather than an explicit concealed understanding nor that "everyone at the table" may be privy to it nullifies the fact that it is a "prearranged method of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws". L73B2 says nothing about "concealed". Whether out of ethcial or legal obligation, or simply to avoid making the violation of L73B2 patently obvious, South must ascertain the meaning of West's 1D bid, presume (even if he knows better) that North's 2D bid carried the systemic meaning appropriate to the meaning of West's 1D bid, and bid accordingly. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Nov 17 15:24:33 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:24:33 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4EC50B9B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> <4EC50B9B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 17/11/2011 14:03, Collins Williams a ?crit : > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Collins Williams wrote: >> >> >> If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you make a bid >> >> over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A and hand Y >> >> over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know whether it >> >> was A or B suggest either X or Y? >> > >> > Doesn't your argument here assume that X intersect Y is empty? >> > If not why isn't it a reasonable alternative conclusion that your >> > action >> > has the same meaning in both cases but some other action you failed >> > to take would have different meanings after A than after B. >> >> If it has the same meaning in both cases, partner will always know >> what you have, so the EI that you would have made the same call over >> some alternative meaning of the opponent's bid wouldn't suggest >> anything that might affect partner's subsequent action. The key >> point, though, is that partner has no way to know that you have >> chosen your call in ignorance of whether the bid meant A or B; his >> natural assumption is that you know which it was, even if he doesn't. >> >> I should be more precise. You are playing method X over opponent's > agreement A and method Y over opponent's agreement B. > A call from method X and a call from method Y have overlapping but not > identical meanings. > In this case, doesn't partners failure to ask imply that his hand comes > from the the intersection of its two definitions? > Isn't that quantifiable extra information? > > > > AG : this is an interesting situation. One might mention 1C -> 2C natural > over 2+ but 1C-> 2C = minors over strong club. > > I think that the word "demonstrably" is the key here. The implication is > very light, because there are other possible explanaitons for the > (non-)fact. For example, partner might have remembered their system, or > looked at their CC. > > Also, if asking, then bidding gives out non-allowed information, and not > asking, then bidding, does too, there is a something rotten. > > Best regards > > My point is that asking then bidding, if one always asks, does not send the information. In fact it is the only way to avoid the generation of this information. So for me, the implication is that IF you have agreements that depend upon the opponents agreements AND your agreements have any of the overlap described above, THEN you must always ask. Collins > > Alain > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/1a95a32d/attachment-0001.html From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Thu Nov 17 15:38:12 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:38:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Flow Charts Message-ID: <001b01cca536$994c1920$cbe44b60$@com> Hi all, Some of you interested by this stuff can use my new set of flow charts on bridge Laws, available on Australian Bridge Directors Association WEB (link below). I made complete revision of them, elimination some typos and slight errors. Your comments and corrections are always welcome. http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf A book, with full Law texts (ACBL 2008 edition) plus charts is also available; sample and information on the same WEB file. Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Qu?bec, Canada PS: I have a French version of these charts and I am still searching for a WEB to put a similar PDF file. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 17 16:02:10 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:02:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Nov 17, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Eric Landau > wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > > >> If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you make a bid > >> over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A and > hand Y > >> over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know whether it > >> was A or B suggest either X or Y? > > > > Doesn't your argument here assume that X intersect Y is empty? > > If not why isn't it a reasonable alternative conclusion that your > > action > > has the same meaning in both cases but some other action you failed > > to take would have different meanings after A than after B. > > If it has the same meaning in both cases, partner will always know > what you have, so the EI that you would have made the same call over > some alternative meaning of the opponent's bid wouldn't suggest > anything that might affect partner's subsequent action. The key > point, though, is that partner has no way to know that you have > chosen your call in ignorance of whether the bid meant A or B; his > natural assumption is that you know which it was, even if he doesn't. > > I should be more precise. You are playing method X over opponent's > agreement A and method Y over opponent's agreement B. > A call from method X and a call from method Y have overlapping but > not identical meanings. > In this case, doesn't partners failure to ask imply that his hand > comes from the the intersection of its two definitions? Not unless your partnership cheats by prearrangement (see my previous post). Otherwise, for partner's failure to ask to imply that he doesn't know (and therefore doesn't care) what the opponent's bid means requires that if he did know he would ask, which is illegal communication (L73B). To avoid a flagrant violation of L73B2, you must presume that partner's failure to ask implies that he was aware of the meaning without having to ask, not that he deliberately chose not to ask in order to communicate that he didn't care. > Isn't that quantifiable extra information? If partner's possible holdings are known to be limited due to his failure to ask, then sure -- just as it would be if he conveyed the same information by scratching his nose. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 17 16:23:57 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:23:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <57009672-59DA-4C3C-B5F3-0359E614BEFC@starpower.net> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> <57009672-59DA-4C3C-B5F3-0359E614BEFC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4EC5270D.2020303@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/11/2011 15:23, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 16, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > >>> [Steve Willner] >>> What is South allowed to do if, a) North asked the meaning of 1D, and >>> b) if North did not ask? >> On 11/15/2011 9:16 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: >> >>> Exactly the same in this and other situations. To treat his partner's >>> call as though his partner was aware of the meaning of 1D. The fact >>> that he asked is UI, the fact that he did not ask is AI (or some >>> would >>> argue, irrelevant UI). >> Sorry, I don't understand this answer. Let's try to be more specific: >> a) North asked about 1D and then bid 2D, which we now know is natural. >> Is 2H by South legal? Is 3D by South legal? >> >> b) North did not ask about 1D, which tells us that 2D shows the >> majors. >> Same two questions. >> >>> If there is a CPU (whether implicit or other) that is different. >> I don't understand this either. Everyone at the table knows what it >> means to ask or not ask, so even if you think there's an understanding >> -- and NS have had no prior discussion -- it's not concealed. > If when North bids 2D after asking about 1D "we now know [it] is > natural", and when North bids 2D without asking it "shows the > majors", I'd call that a prima facie violation of L73B2, "the gravest > possible offense" in TFLB. Neither that the "prearrangement" may > have been effected by "general knowledge" rather than an explicit > concealed understanding nor that "everyone at the table" may be privy > to it nullifies the fact that it is a "prearranged method of > communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws". L73B2 says > nothing about "concealed". AG : indeed. If we told opponents that we always hesitate when we hold exactly three cards in the last suit bid (once determined as the most useful single information if one wanted to cheat), that wouldn't allow us to do so. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 17 16:27:47 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:27:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> <4EC50B9B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4EC527F3.9040006@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/11/2011 15:24, Collins Williams a ?crit : > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > Le 17/11/2011 14:03, Collins Williams a ?crit : >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Eric Landau > > wrote: >> >> On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Collins Williams wrote: >> >> >> If an opponent's bid might mean either A or B, and you >> make a bid >> >> over it that, in your methods, shows hand X over meaning A >> and hand Y >> >> over meaning B, how would the EI that you might not know >> whether it >> >> was A or B suggest either X or Y? >> > >> > Doesn't your argument here assume that X intersect Y is empty? >> > If not why isn't it a reasonable alternative conclusion >> that your >> > action >> > has the same meaning in both cases but some other action >> you failed >> > to take would have different meanings after A than after B. >> >> If it has the same meaning in both cases, partner will always >> know >> what you have, so the EI that you would have made the same >> call over >> some alternative meaning of the opponent's bid wouldn't suggest >> anything that might affect partner's subsequent action. The key >> point, though, is that partner has no way to know that you have >> chosen your call in ignorance of whether the bid meant A or >> B; his >> natural assumption is that you know which it was, even if he >> doesn't. >> >> I should be more precise. You are playing method X over >> opponent's agreement A and method Y over opponent's agreement B. >> A call from method X and a call from method Y have overlapping >> but not identical meanings. >> In this case, doesn't partners failure to ask imply that his hand >> comes from the the intersection of its two definitions? >> Isn't that quantifiable extra information? >> >> > AG : this is an interesting situation. One might mention 1C -> 2C > natural over 2+ but 1C-> 2C = minors over strong club. > > I think that the word "demonstrably" is the key here. The > implication is very light, because there are other possible > explanaitons for the (non-)fact. For example, partner might have > remembered their system, or looked at their CC. > > Also, if asking, then bidding gives out non-allowed information, > and not asking, then bidding, does too, there is a something rotten. > > Best regards > > > My point is that asking then bidding, if one always asks, does not > send the information. In fact it is the only way > to avoid the generation of this information. So for me, the > implication is that IF you have agreements that depend > upon the opponents agreements AND your agreements have any of the > overlap described above, THEN you must > always ask. > AG : similar to mandatory pauses ? Clever, but there are many who will tell you that you may not ask if you know the answer and there is a possibility that partner isn't aware of the meaning. A contradiction which I prefer to solve by sticking to the moderately high degree of provability for UI which is mentioned in TFLB. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/64d3ffba/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Nov 17 16:40:57 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:40:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> <4EC50B9B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Alain Gottcheiner > wrote: > > Le 17/11/2011 14:03, Collins Williams a ?crit : > >> I should be more precise. You are playing method X over >> opponent's agreement A and method Y over opponent's >> agreement B. >> A call from method X and a call from method Y have overlapping but >> not identical meanings. >> In this case, doesn't partners failure to ask imply that his hand >> comes from the the intersection of its two definitions? >> Isn't that quantifiable extra information? > >> > AG : this is an interesting situation. One might mention 1C -> 2C > natural over 2+ but 1C-> 2C = minors over strong club. > > I think that the word "demonstrably" is the key here. The > implication is very light, because there are other possible > explanaitons for the (non-)fact. For example, partner might have > remembered their system, or looked at their CC. > > Also, if asking, then bidding gives out non-allowed information, > and not asking, then bidding, does too, there is a something rotten. > > My point is that asking then bidding, if one always asks, does not > send the information. Which doesn't mean that not asking then bidding sends the opposite information, as Alain points out (for it to do so would violate L73B2). But asking then bidding sends (or, more precisely, "conveys") different information, namely that contained in the reply. > In fact it is the only way > to avoid the generation of this information. But even if not asking did generate such extraneous information, that still wouldn't be illegal. Only for partner to take advantage of it in selecting a call or play would be. > So for me, the implication is that IF you have agreements that depend > upon the opponents agreements AND your agreements have any of the > overlap described above, THEN you must > always ask. That would be illegal. You are presumed to have some reason for asking, so if you cannot be asking for your own benefit (because you already know the answer), you are presumed to be asking for partner's -- potentially insuring against a misunderstanding by calling his attention to your particular agreement over this particular meaning -- in direct violation of L20G1. Note that even if you are motivated solely by the desire to prevent partner from committing what might appear to be a UI violation, you are still asking "for partner's benefit". The only way to avoid actually committing an infraction is for partner always to presume that you chose your call knowing what it meant, and therefore that if its meaning depended on the meaning of an opponent's call, you must know that as well, whether or not you ask. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 17 17:07:08 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:07:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net> <8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com> <4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net> <6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> <4EC50B9B.3020809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4EC5312C.3010605@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/11/2011 16:40, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Alain Gottcheiner >> wrote: >> >> Le 17/11/2011 14:03, Collins Williams a ?crit : >> >>> I should be more precise. You are playing method X over >>> opponent's agreement A and method Y over opponent's >>> agreement B. >>> A call from method X and a call from method Y have overlapping but >>> not identical meanings. >>> In this case, doesn't partners failure to ask imply that his hand >>> comes from the the intersection of its two definitions? >>> Isn't that quantifiable extra information? >> AG : this is an interesting situation. One might mention 1C -> 2C >> natural over 2+ but 1C-> 2C = minors over strong club. >> >> I think that the word "demonstrably" is the key here. The >> implication is very light, because there are other possible >> explanaitons for the (non-)fact. For example, partner might have >> remembered their system, or looked at their CC. >> >> Also, if asking, then bidding gives out non-allowed information, >> and not asking, then bidding, does too, there is a something rotten. >> >> My point is that asking then bidding, if one always asks, does not >> send the information. > Which doesn't mean that not asking then bidding sends the opposite > information, as Alain points out (for it to do so would violate > L73B2). But asking then bidding sends (or, more precisely, > "conveys") different information, namely that contained in the reply. > >> In fact it is the only way >> to avoid the generation of this information. > But even if not asking did generate such extraneous information, that > still wouldn't be illegal. Only for partner to take advantage of it > in selecting a call or play would be. > >> So for me, the implication is that IF you have agreements that depend >> upon the opponents agreements AND your agreements have any of the >> overlap described above, THEN you must >> always ask. > That would be illegal. You are presumed to have some reason for > asking, so if you cannot be asking for your own benefit AG : I think I know what Collins means here. After a skip bid, one is compelled to wait even if for no reason other than abiding by the law, so that could also be the case here. I don't agree with his motives, but there is logic in it, and the "no bridge reason" attack would be voided if some bridge law made it a reason. > (because you > already know the answer), you are presumed to be asking for partner's > -- potentially insuring against a misunderstanding by calling his > attention to your particular agreement over this particular meaning > -- in direct violation of L20G1. AG : yes, that's it. And also the law (73?) which says that only calls and plays may be used to convey information. (not "convey", just "be used to convey"). > Note that even if you are motivated > solely by the desire to prevent partner from committing what might > appear to be a UI violation, you are still asking "for partner's > benefit". > > The only way to avoid actually committing an infraction is for > partner always to presume that you chose your call knowing what it > meant, and therefore that if its meaning depended on the meaning of > an opponent's call, you must know that as well, whether or not you ask. AG : in fact, there remains a little problem : say that they didn't alert, and you suspect them to have forgotten to alert. if the "should have protected oneself" proviso is on, you're damned. Best regards Alain > > > 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 g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 17 19:17:15 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:17:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net><8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com><4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net><6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> Message-ID: <773091AC0B9E49AA9EE768E7BC832D75@G3> [Eric Landau] Not unless your partnership cheats by prearrangement (see my previous post). Otherwise, for partner's failure to ask to imply that he doesn't know (and therefore doesn't care) what the opponent's bid means requires that if he did know he would ask, which is illegal communication (L73B). To avoid a flagrant violation of L73B2, you must presume that partner's failure to ask implies that he was aware of the meaning without having to ask, not that he deliberately chose not to ask in order to communicate that he didn't care. [Nigel] I dislike superfluous laws that subject ordinary players, acting in good faith, to accusations of cheating. To Eric, partner not asking means that he already knows. That is a possibility. Many players pick up another inference. By asking or not asking, partner shows or denies a suitable hand for systemic action, if opponent's bid has some specific meaning. They would be incapable of the mental contortions required to recognize and avoid the use of this kind of UI, if UI it is. They would wonder what the fuss was about. They would be amazed by any accusation of "concealed partnership understanding" or other form of cheating, especially when playing, without prior discussion, with a stranger, in a pick-up partnership. It's a pity current disclosure law encourages this kind of thing when it's so simple to avoid. From g3 at nige1.com Thu Nov 17 21:44:27 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:44:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Flow Charts In-Reply-To: <001b01cca536$994c1920$cbe44b60$@com> References: <001b01cca536$994c1920$cbe44b60$@com> Message-ID: [laval dubreuil, Adstock, Qu?bec, Canada] Some of you interested by this stuff can use my new set of flow charts on bridge Laws, available on Australian Bridge Directors Association WEB (link below). I made complete revision of them, elimination some typos and slight errors. Your comments and corrections are always welcome. http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf A book, with full Law texts (ACBL 2008 edition) plus charts is also available; sample and information on the same WEB file. [Nige1[ Laval's idea is brilliant! Some of the next logical steps ... - Integrate with a simple set of *regulations* (ege WBF) - Publish on the Web as a *complete* Bridge rule-book. - Ensure that the Web version can be used as *mobile* "app". - and by *on-line bridge sites*. - Refine, simplify, and clarify using an optimiser program - with feedback from players. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Nov 17 21:59:11 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:59:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 In-Reply-To: <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> References: <1321410554.69690.YahooMailNeo@web65401.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <26318363413E44A7AB6F3095ED6D2322@G3> Message-ID: <4EC5759F.4070903@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/25c6073e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Nov 17 22:39:48 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:39:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16B3 (was Law 64C and Law 64B4 & 5) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5697E928BE294793ADFADA7CA9A9504F@G3> Message-ID: EBU White Book, clause 162.3 -> It can be exceedingly difficult to settle satisfactorily a question which requires a Director's ruling ? as distinct from a reading and application of the law ? in a match which is played privately. [snip] Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] If this is a match in a private home, then you may need to 'phone up a director several times. [snip] Richard Hills -> An exaggeration. It seems that EBU White Book clause 162.3 delegates the two captains in a match played privately to be partial co-Directors, with the power to execute mechanical rulings merely involving "a reading and application of the law". Only if a disputed judgement ruling is required for a private match should the captains phone an independent Director. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111117/4f353e7e/attachment.html From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Thu Nov 17 23:54:49 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:54:49 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Flow Charts In-Reply-To: References: <001b01cca536$994c1920$cbe44b60$@com> Message-ID: <001301cca57b$f9f698f0$ede3cad0$@com> Thx Nigel, And it will be interesting to set URL links between charts and Law texts already on the WEB. But I am retired and becoming old. I just hope the trillion of hours I spent on these charts will not be lost and that somebody else will help doing the job on the next version of laws. I am also strongly convinced that these charts can help setting information in a more useful and logical order when the next version of the Laws will be prepared. I will give examples in a near future, using some 2008 Laws and rewriting them according to my charts. Laval Du Breuil ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ [laval dubreuil, Adstock, Qu?bec, Canada] Some of you interested by this stuff can use my new set of flow charts on bridge Laws, available on Australian Bridge Directors Association WEB (link below). I made complete revision of them, elimination some typos and slight errors. Your comments and corrections are always welcome. http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf A book, with full Law texts (ACBL 2008 edition) plus charts is also available; sample and information on the same WEB file. [Nige1[ Laval's idea is brilliant! Some of the next logical steps ... - Integrate with a simple set of *regulations* (ege WBF) - Publish on the Web as a *complete* Bridge rule-book. - Ensure that the Web version can be used as *mobile* "app". - and by *on-line bridge sites*. - Refine, simplify, and clarify using an optimiser program - with feedback from players. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 18 01:02:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:02:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6008E6EA42484DE5A73AE7799D830AE3@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] A drastically simplified disclosure law might remove some of the worst anomalies. This could result in less fun for directors but the game would be fairer and more enjoyable for players. Drastically simplified non-anomalous single paragraph 2018 Lawbook, with zero workload (so-called "fun") for Directors -> Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. The suits rank downward in the order spades (S), hearts (H), diamonds (D), clubs (C). The cards of each suit rank downward in the order Ace, King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. In the beginning all 52 cards shall be disclosed face up. After inspection of the 52 disclosed cards, the four players shall adjourn for two fair and enjoyable games of chess. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111118/acb3c8f0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Nov 18 01:23:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:23:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Introduction filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2007 Introduction, third sentence -> Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. Eric Landau -> While I appreciate the sentiment, the above statement is simply wrong, unless we wish to eliminate players' rights to appeal Directors' decisions. Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> accept, consent to receive (gift, thanks, &c.) abide by, adhere to Richard Hills -> The 2007 Introduction uses "accept" instead of "abide by". So it seems to me that one is fully entitled to attempt to return the gift of an adjusted score gracefully received from the Director via a later appeal. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111118/287694a9/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Nov 18 02:51:10 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:51:10 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC51289.2070506@aol.com> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> <4EC51289.2070506@aol.com> Message-ID: <4EC5BA0E.3050709@nhcc.net> On 11/17/2011 8:56 AM, PL wrote: > You must live in a cheat's paradise. I play at two typical ACBL clubs except that both Directors are much better than average. The players are the usual mixed lot overall, but the ones of concern are in the "less experienced" category (some of them having remained in this category for decades). > In your example, if 2D is the majors over 1D, then > it is that whether or not one asks. If 2D is systemically natural, it is > that. These players have never seen an artificial 1D before. It probably hasn't occurred to most of them that such a thing is possible. > The infraction would be using the question or lack of a question > to "communicate", and if someone treated 2D as natural because of the > question, when it was systemically Michaels, then that would be evidence > of illegal communication under 73B. This might be workable, but how does it differ from treating the presence or absence of a question as UI? Obviously they have no systemic agreement and will tell you that if you ask them. However, they "guess" right far more than 50% of the time. On 11/17/2011 9:23 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > If when North bids 2D after asking about 1D "we now know [it] is > natural", and when North bids 2D without asking it "shows the > majors", I'd call that a prima facie violation of L73B2, ... > it is a "prearranged method of communication other than... Prearranged?! How prearranged? I can understand 73B1 but not the "prearranged" part. On 11/17/2011 9:24 AM, Collins Williams wrote: > My point is that asking then bidding, if one always asks, does not send > the information. Asking about alerted calls, at least early in the auction, is nearly universal in the ACBL. As Collins says, this seldom if ever gives information about one's hand. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Nov 18 15:26:35 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:26:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4EC5BA0E.3050709@nhcc.net> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> <4EC51289.2070506@aol.com> <4EC5BA0E.3050709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Nov 17, 2011, at 8:51 PM, Steve Willner wrote: > On 11/17/2011 9:23 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> If when North bids 2D after asking about 1D "we now know [it] is >> natural", and when North bids 2D without asking it "shows the >> majors", I'd call that a prima facie violation of L73B2, > ... >> it is a "prearranged method of communication other than... > > Prearranged?! How prearranged? I can understand 73B1 but not the > "prearranged" part. I'd define a "prearranged" method as one of which both members of the partnership are aware before they sit down at the table. A "prearranged method" is simply an agreement, and like any such agreement, legal or not, may be formed either explicitly, by discussion, or implicitly, based on experience. When there is sufficient common experience that "everyone at the table knows what it means... even if... [they] have had no prior discussion", that would seem to meet the criteria for an "implicit understanding". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From g3 at nige1.com Fri Nov 18 16:29:29 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:29:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EC5BA0E.3050709@nhcc.net> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com><8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com><4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net><8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com><4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> <4EC51289.2070506@aol.com> <4EC5BA0E.3050709@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <7CAD66C4D5604A8895A1C48730631633@G3> [Steve Willner] Prearranged?! How prearranged? I can understand 73B1 but not the "prearranged" part. [Nigel] I agree. For most players this may be an implicit agreement, but it is hardly pre-arranged. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 18 20:49:50 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7CAD66C4D5604A8895A1C48730631633@G3> References: <1481514623.50426.1321230091364.JavaMail.zimbra@core-msb002.r1000.mail.aol.com> <8CE707AD8AA67C7-189C-3E50A@web-mmc-d08.sysops.aol.com> <4EC1D638.2060204@nhcc.net> <8CE71B843CB23F0-1FEC-5B6A3@webmail-m011.sysops.aol.com> <4EC47A1C.6030900@nhcc.net> <4EC51289.2070506@aol.com> <4EC5BA0E.3050709@nhcc.net> <7CAD66C4D5604A8895A1C48730631633@G3> Message-ID: I sit down to play one hand with a player today. We have no agreements. her LHO me RHO P P 1D 2D 2H P 3C P 3D P P P Before bidding, my partner says "I suppose 2D showed the majors." RHO: "You should have asked sooner." LHO asks me what 2H means. I explain that when she doesn't ask the meaning of 2D, 2H is natural. (Partner confirms naturalness before the opening lead.) So, no implicit agreements, no partnership agreements. It's just common sense. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 19 00:10:28 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:10:28 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection Message-ID: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> I have yet to hear from anybody about the way Italy and France select their teams for international competitions. Others welcome also. I have heard from the Netherlands, Australia, and Belgium only. I need the information in order to formulate a suggested plan for the USBF. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Sat Nov 19 00:43:50 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:43:50 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marv, It is my understanding that the top bridge talent in Italy has been cornered by three rich sponsors. It is from this stable that the BB teams are chosen [as well as for representation in other events for Italy]. My understanding is that Italy chooses a captain and the captain chooses the team. Ostensibly the captain comes from one of those sponsors. At least that is what I distilled from some articles on bridgeTopics about some of the dissension amongst the bridge elite in Italy. regards roger pewick ---------------------------------------- > From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com > To: blml at rtflb.org > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:10:28 -0800 > Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection > > I have yet to hear from anybody about the way Italy and France > select their teams for international competitions. Others welcome > also. I have heard from the Netherlands, Australia, and Belgium > only. I need the information in order to formulate a suggested plan > for the USBF. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Sat Nov 19 06:43:03 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:43:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Flow Charts In-Reply-To: <001301cca57b$f9f698f0$ede3cad0$@com> References: <001b01cca536$994c1920$cbe44b60$@com> <001301cca57b$f9f698f0$ede3cad0$@com> Message-ID: <000901cca67e$2bad75a0$830860e0$@com> Laval writes: And it will be interesting to set URL links between charts and Law texts already on the WEB. _________________________________________________________________________ Hi all, Yesterday, I granted Dr Raghavan P.S, member of BLML, permission to set such links on the Bridge India website and he did today. See: http://www.bridgeindia.com/LAWS_OF_DUPLICATE_BRIDGE_2007.html He will add the French version in a near future. Thx Dr Raghavan. Let tell you the whole story of these charts. At the end of 80s, I made a first set of laws flow charts to help my wife becoming an ACBL club director and I published a first law book with full 1987 French version of texts plus 20 charts. I had no problem getting permission from F?d?ration Fran?aise de Bridge to use their texts despite copyright. I then made an English version of the book, send a copy to ACBL and ask permission to do the same, saying that I should prefer they publish an sell the book and make the charts available through their website. Despite the fact that somebody there help improving the charts, I spent 6 to 7 years of continuous efforts before finally be told they granted me permission about texts, but no more. However, I am a member of ACBL since more than 35 years, an ACBL Star Teacher and was then a TD. In the meantime, I improved my charts and made the 1997 French and English versions of the book, selling most copies in Canada. Ten years ago, the Australian Bridge Directors Association was the first bridge organization to recognize the value of my work and ask me permission to put some charts in its Bulletin. In 2010, the whole set of 2008 charts was offer on their website, as a PDF file, and I finally had a proposal by Bridge India to make links between texts and charts, in English and in French; exactly what I am searching for, coming again from the other side of the earth.... Nul n'est proph?te en son pays, dit la Bible. Despite the fact that these charts are now available through the WEB, I continue to think that a printed Law book, with texts and charts just in front, is a very useful tool for bridge players who want to learn some rules of their game and for most club directors who find TFLB too much complicated. I now dream that a bridge organization will make and publish the 2018 edition. Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Qu?bec, Canada From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Sun Nov 20 06:46:16 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:46:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1321493222.63839.YahooMailNeo@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1321767976.18094.YahooMailNeo@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? Richard Hills -> >>Anda: (c) [following a claim] If one is careless and doesn?t ask [to see the cards] or call the TD, does he deserve the benefit of considering his complaint and applying L64C within the protest time? Imo no.<< ? >The pejorative word "deserve" has no place in a discussion of the current(1) Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If a player is entitled by Law to a particular ruling, it is irrelevant whether or not that player "deserves" that ruling.< ? >>Anda: I keep in mind that most probably the alleged NOS will be more experienced than the alleged OS.<< ? >Yes and No. Experienced players have a greater responsibility to avoid reckless infractions... But if an inexperienced player's infraction damages an experienced player, a Director refusing to adjust the score would be perpetrating a Director's Error category mistake; politeness to inexperienced players does not extend to letting them freely break the rules.< ? Anda:? This is not what I meant. Heaven forbid! ? The TD should apply the Laws regardless of his feelings toward players or his opinion about the specific law. ? The case itself is too exceptional to bother with it. The reason I posted it (after 3 weeks of investigation) is?that the questions raised by this case might be considered for 2018. ? From directors not applying 64C, I found out that in Law 64B2 the sentence "Law 64C may apply" seems unnecessary and confusing as long as Law 64C should be applied by definition to all the 7 cases. ? From the directors applying 64C, I didn't get one clear answer saying "first I have to consider if the revoke occurred". It is logically to do that, but the laws don't stipulate it. ? "Too late to establish the facts. Why didn?t you call sooner?" ? No, is not too late (Law 81C3); it?s only harder especially if the facts are disputed.?And then: ? Ruling within the correction period which ends 30 minutes after the scores are known !?Should director?s attitude be normal or more vigilant like in Law 79? ? Ruling on disputed facts within correction period (revoke, call or play based on misinformation) ? it will be good having a sentence or two instructing and backing up the director. ? Best wishes, Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111120/525bfc1b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 21 06:29:41 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:29:41 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64C and Law 64B 4 & 5 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1321767976.18094.YahooMailNeo@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anda Enciu -> [snip] From directors not applying 64C, I found out that in Law 64B2 the sentence "Law 64C may apply" seems unnecessary and confusing as long as Law 64C should be applied by definition to all the 7 cases. [snip] Richard Hills -> Definitely not unnecessary to write "may apply" instead of "should be applied by definition" in Law 64B2. The rest of Law 64B (with the exception of Law 64B7) deals with a single revoke by a single side. Because Law 64B2 deals with multiple revokes by the same side it is possible that Law 64C _may not_ apply to the first revoke (with Law 64A applying instead), but that Law 64C _may_ apply to the subsequent revoke(s). Ton Kooijman, commentary on Laws 64B2 and 64C -> A special situation arises when there is a second revoke by the same player in the same suit. It asks for application of Law 64C if the result on the board would have been better, for the non-offending side, without that second revoke. Example: .....................S AKQ5 S T74.....................................S J9 .....................S 8632 South is declarer in a NT contract. He plays to the SA, East does not follow suit: one trick penalty. He continues with the SK and East revokes again. Later East wins a trick with SJ. If East had not revoked for a second time, declarer would have made 4 spade tricks and an extra trick as rectification for the revoke. Due to the second revoke he only makes three spade tricks. Applying Law 64C, the TD adjusts the score by giving him the tricks he would have received with only one revoke made (4 plus 1). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111121/0820ff50/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Nov 21 07:06:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:06:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Instructing the Director (was Law 64...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) -> Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it. Anda Enciu -> [snip] From the directors applying 64C, I didn't get one clear answer saying "first I have to consider if the revoke occurred". It is logically to do that, but the laws don't stipulate it. Richard Hills -> No, the Laws are poorly cross-referenced. I have a Modest Proposal that what are now Law 84 (Rulings on Agreed Facts) and Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) gain their own Chapter in the revised and reformatted 2018 Lawbook. In my opinion, this will assist grass-roots Directors to avoid placing the cart before the horse. Anda Enciu -> "Too late to establish the facts. Why didn?t you call sooner?" ? No, is not too late (Law 81C3); it?s only harder especially if the facts are disputed. And then: Ruling within the correction period which ends 30 minutes after the scores are known! Should director?s attitude be normal or more vigilant like in Law 79? Law 79B2, final phrase -> but there shall be no obligation to increase a side's score. Richard Hills -> Many years ago Edgar Kaplan noticed that two ACBL experts had brainwashed two Little Old Ladies opponents after the session, but within the Correction Period. The LOLs requested that their score of -110 on a particular board be reduced to -140, and the two ACBL experts provided a corresponding plausible line of play for the "scoring error". At that time the Laws gave the Director in charge no discretion but to accede to the request. So this situation went into Edgar Kaplan's notebook, and he ensured that the next edition of the Lawbook prevented such brainwashing. But a disputed infraction is a different kettle of fish, so in these circumstances the Director impartially rules under Law 85. Anda Enciu -> Ruling on disputed facts within correction period (revoke, call or play based on misinformation) ? it will be good having a sentence or two instructing and backing up the director. Richard Hills -> In my highly unofficial opinion, my instruction is that the key words and phrases in Law 85A are: balance of probabilities weight of the evidence able collect satisfied Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111121/919ad15d/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Nov 21 10:39:58 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:39:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> Marvin French a ?crit : > I have yet to hear from anybody about the way Italy and France > select their teams for international competitions. Others welcome > also. I have heard from the Netherlands, Australia, and Belgium > only. I need the information in order to formulate a suggested plan > for the USBF. i can answer for france. this year the french federation chose a new way for selection. target is next european championship (june 2012). 50 pairs were allowed to enter the scheme of selection. after 2 week-ends of preliminary competition (imp scoring), the field was reduced to 16. last week, the remaining 16 pairs played 240 deals (imp scoring) and the 8 top pairs will now form the group of players placed under the authority of a coach (kryzstof martens) to train through working meetings and friendly competitions. at last, the coach will designate among the 8 pairs the french team for the next international championships. jpr > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 21 12:54:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:54:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <773091AC0B9E49AA9EE768E7BC832D75@G3> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net><8CE6DB06878665A-2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com><4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net><6FDF76CA-4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net> <773091AC0B9E49AA9EE768E7BC832D75@G3> Message-ID: <4ECA3BFA.2030608@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/11/2011 19:17, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Eric Landau] > Not unless your partnership cheats by prearrangement (see my previous > post). Otherwise, for partner's failure to ask to imply that he > doesn't know (and therefore doesn't care) what the opponent's bid > means requires that if he did know he would ask, which is illegal > communication (L73B). To avoid a flagrant violation of L73B2, you > must presume that partner's failure to ask implies that he was aware > of the meaning without having to ask, not that he deliberately chose > not to ask in order to communicate that he didn't care. > > [Nigel] > I dislike superfluous laws that subject ordinary players, acting in good > faith, to accusations of cheating. To Eric, partner not asking means that > he already knows. That is a possibility. Many players pick up another > inference. By asking or not asking, partner shows or denies a suitable hand > for systemic action, if opponent's bid has some specific meaning. They > would be incapable of the mental contortions required to recognize and avoid > the use of this kind of UI, if UI it is. AG : we are discussing on very little here, aren't we ? Following Eric's advice, if partner doesn't ask, we have to consider that partner knows what he's doing, which we always do (or should do), so what's the problem ? Following Nigel's analysis (which I more or less do), recognizing UI (I mean, not just the possibility of UI, but which one it is) from partner's question or non-question would be so difficult that the TD or AC almost never will be able to use the "demonstrably suggested" proviso. The UI laws were designed, and formulated, in order to handle the obvious UI coing from e.g. a reluctant double or a very specific question about opponents' holding in some suit. Surely not for the cases where "partner has something in mind, but what ?" In both cases, the fact of not asking can hardly be considred as transmitting *useful* UI, unless it's coded. Best regards Alain From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Nov 21 14:11:29 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:11:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4ECA3BFA.2030608@ulb.ac.be> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net><8CE6DB06878665A -2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com><4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net><6FDF76CA- 4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net><773091AC0B9E49AA9 EE768E7BC832D75@G3> <4ECA3BFA.2030608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4ECA4E01.9000505@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 17/11/2011 19:17, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : >> [Eric Landau] >> Not unless your partnership cheats by prearrangement (see my previous >> post). Otherwise, for partner's failure to ask to imply that he >> doesn't know (and therefore doesn't care) what the opponent's bid >> means requires that if he did know he would ask, which is illegal >> communication (L73B). To avoid a flagrant violation of L73B2, you >> must presume that partner's failure to ask implies that he was aware >> of the meaning without having to ask, not that he deliberately chose >> not to ask in order to communicate that he didn't care. >> >> [Nigel] >> I dislike superfluous laws that subject ordinary players, acting in good >> faith, to accusations of cheating. To Eric, partner not asking means that >> he already knows. That is a possibility. Many players pick up another >> inference. By asking or not asking, partner shows or denies a suitable hand >> for systemic action, if opponent's bid has some specific meaning. They >> would be incapable of the mental contortions required to recognize and avoid >> the use of this kind of UI, if UI it is. > AG : we are discussing on very little here, aren't we ? > > Following Eric's advice, if partner doesn't ask, we have to consider > that partner knows what he's doing, which we always do (or should do), > so what's the problem ? > > Following Nigel's analysis (which I more or less do), recognizing UI (I > mean, not just the possibility of UI, but which one it is) from > partner's question or non-question would be so difficult that the TD or > AC almost never will be able to use the "demonstrably suggested" proviso. > > The UI laws were designed, and formulated, in order to handle the > obvious UI coing from e.g. a reluctant double or a very specific > question about opponents' holding in some suit. > Surely not for the cases where "partner has something in mind, but what ?" > > In both cases, the fact of not asking can hardly be considred as > transmitting *useful* UI, unless it's coded. no useful UI? i encountered several times this situation: i play an artificial system in which the 1C opening shows 4 cards in spades. the opponent, holding a decent 4441 hand, doubles without asking. when he holds 1444, he asks just in case, learns for the spades and realizes he also holds the perfect hand for a double. fortunately, screens are an effective remedy to this trick. jpr > > > Best regards > > > Alain -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 21 16:24:46 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:24:46 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4ECA4E01.9000505@meteo.fr> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net><8CE6DB06878665A -2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com><4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net><6FDF76CA- 4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net><773091AC0B9E49AA9 EE768E7BC832D75@G3> <4ECA3BFA.2030608@ulb.ac.be> <4ECA4E01.9000505@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4ECA6D3E.5090900@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/11/2011 14:11, jean-pierre.rocafort a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >> Le 17/11/2011 19:17, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : >>> [Eric Landau] >>> Not unless your partnership cheats by prearrangement (see my previous >>> post). Otherwise, for partner's failure to ask to imply that he >>> doesn't know (and therefore doesn't care) what the opponent's bid >>> means requires that if he did know he would ask, which is illegal >>> communication (L73B). To avoid a flagrant violation of L73B2, you >>> must presume that partner's failure to ask implies that he was aware >>> of the meaning without having to ask, not that he deliberately chose >>> not to ask in order to communicate that he didn't care. >>> >>> [Nigel] >>> I dislike superfluous laws that subject ordinary players, acting in good >>> faith, to accusations of cheating. To Eric, partner not asking means that >>> he already knows. That is a possibility. Many players pick up another >>> inference. By asking or not asking, partner shows or denies a suitable hand >>> for systemic action, if opponent's bid has some specific meaning. They >>> would be incapable of the mental contortions required to recognize and avoid >>> the use of this kind of UI, if UI it is. >> AG : we are discussing on very little here, aren't we ? >> >> Following Eric's advice, if partner doesn't ask, we have to consider >> that partner knows what he's doing, which we always do (or should do), >> so what's the problem ? >> >> Following Nigel's analysis (which I more or less do), recognizing UI (I >> mean, not just the possibility of UI, but which one it is) from >> partner's question or non-question would be so difficult that the TD or >> AC almost never will be able to use the "demonstrably suggested" proviso. >> >> The UI laws were designed, and formulated, in order to handle the >> obvious UI coing from e.g. a reluctant double or a very specific >> question about opponents' holding in some suit. >> Surely not for the cases where "partner has something in mind, but what ?" >> >> In both cases, the fact of not asking can hardly be considred as >> transmitting *useful* UI, unless it's coded. > no useful UI? i encountered several times this situation: i play an > artificial system in which the 1C opening shows 4 cards in spades. the > opponent, holding a decent 4441 hand, doubles without asking. when he > holds 1444, he asks just in case, learns for the spades and realizes he > also holds the perfect hand for a double. fortunately, screens are an > effective remedy to this trick. > j AG : I hope you pre-alert this ? Just so they don't have to ask. I played "la majeure d'abord" long ago, but more frequently 1D with the same meaning, and surely this was one of the things we pre-alerted. Now, if they ask *after* you pre-alerted this, then there might be some problem. The biggest problem, of course, is that relatively mundane 1C openings are alerted the same way as very odd ones. Yes, I'm in favor of double-tiered alerts. This is even more true in France, where nearly everything is alertable. I've sen a very big French name -and bidding theorician- assume that 1C - pass - 1H was alerted because we played Walsh style. We didn't, it was T-Walsh. The ensuing bidding was, er, strange. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 21 18:05:38 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:05:38 -0000 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4ECA6D3E.5090900@ulb.ac.be> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net><8CE6DB06878665A -2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com><4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net><6FDF76CA- 4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net><773091AC0B9E49AA9 EE768E7BC832D75@G3><4ECA3BFA.2030608@ulb.ac.be> <4ECA4E01.9000505@meteo.fr> <4ECA6D3E.5090900@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <506B7FA492174965A233E67354494892@G3> [Alain] The biggest problem, of course, is that relatively mundane 1C openings are alerted the same way as very odd ones. Yes, I'm in favor of double-tiered alerts. [Nige1] There is also a problem is with *non-alertable* calls with several possible meanings, to one of which, you have devised a special defence. (For instance, in some jurisdictions, doubles or bids at the four-level). Suppose you have agreed a defence to "same-level conversion takeout-doubles". You ask but the doubler's partner explains that it is an ordinary take-out double. Unless you always ask, when you now pass, you may imply that your hand is suitable for your convention. Some partners (maybe not Eric landau) would be inhibited from choosing among logical alternatives, an action suggested by this nebulous inference. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Nov 21 18:07:10 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:07:10 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <4ECA6D3E.5090900@ulb.ac.be> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net><8CE6DB06878665 A -2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com><4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net><6FDF76C A- 4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net><773091AC0B9 E49AA9 EE768E7BC832D75@G3> <4ECA3BFA.2030608@ulb.ac.be> <4ECA4E01.9000505@meteo.fr> <4ECA6D3E.5090900@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4ECA853E.3030608@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 21/11/2011 14:11, jean-pierre.rocafort a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >>> Le 17/11/2011 19:17, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : >>>> [Eric Landau] >>>> Not unless your partnership cheats by prearrangement (see my previous >>>> post). Otherwise, for partner's failure to ask to imply that he >>>> doesn't know (and therefore doesn't care) what the opponent's bid >>>> means requires that if he did know he would ask, which is illegal >>>> communication (L73B). To avoid a flagrant violation of L73B2, you >>>> must presume that partner's failure to ask implies that he was aware >>>> of the meaning without having to ask, not that he deliberately chose >>>> not to ask in order to communicate that he didn't care. >>>> >>>> [Nigel] >>>> I dislike superfluous laws that subject ordinary players, acting in >>>> good >>>> faith, to accusations of cheating. To Eric, partner not asking >>>> means that >>>> he already knows. That is a possibility. Many players pick up another >>>> inference. By asking or not asking, partner shows or denies a >>>> suitable hand >>>> for systemic action, if opponent's bid has some specific meaning. They >>>> would be incapable of the mental contortions required to recognize >>>> and avoid >>>> the use of this kind of UI, if UI it is. >>> AG : we are discussing on very little here, aren't we ? >>> >>> Following Eric's advice, if partner doesn't ask, we have to consider >>> that partner knows what he's doing, which we always do (or should do), >>> so what's the problem ? >>> >>> Following Nigel's analysis (which I more or less do), recognizing UI (I >>> mean, not just the possibility of UI, but which one it is) from >>> partner's question or non-question would be so difficult that the TD or >>> AC almost never will be able to use the "demonstrably suggested" >>> proviso. >>> >>> The UI laws were designed, and formulated, in order to handle the >>> obvious UI coing from e.g. a reluctant double or a very specific >>> question about opponents' holding in some suit. >>> Surely not for the cases where "partner has something in mind, but >>> what ?" >>> >>> In both cases, the fact of not asking can hardly be considred as >>> transmitting *useful* UI, unless it's coded. >> no useful UI? i encountered several times this situation: i play an >> artificial system in which the 1C opening shows 4 cards in spades. the >> opponent, holding a decent 4441 hand, doubles without asking. when he >> holds 1444, he asks just in case, learns for the spades and realizes he >> also holds the perfect hand for a double. fortunately, screens are an >> effective remedy to this trick. >> j > AG : I hope you pre-alert this ? pre-alert is made one month before, with a copy of CC > Just so they don't have to ask. they need to ask. they never care about pre-alert, documentation and CC before having to cope with it. even when they look at it, they may have forgotten when the bid happens. > I played "la majeure d'abord" long ago, but more frequently 1D with the > same meaning, and surely this was one of the things we pre-alerted. > Now, if they ask *after* you pre-alerted this, then there might be some > problem. no problem i think, everybody will assume they don't remember. > > The biggest problem, of course, is that relatively mundane 1C openings > are alerted the same way as very odd ones. Yes, I'm in favor of > double-tiered alerts. i am extremely opposed to multi-level alerts. if you set up double-tiered alerts, you will have to create intricated rules to distinguish them and soon afterwards, players will want 3-tiered, 4-tiered and it will never end. i am very fond of ultra-simplistic rules for alerts: alert when you think there is a possibility that opponents would better ask than assume. > > This is even more true in France, where nearly everything is alertable. > I've sen a very big French name -and bidding theorician- assume that 1C > - pass - 1H was alerted because we played Walsh style. We didn't, it was > T-Walsh. The ensuing bidding was, er, strange. there would be much to say about bad habits. jpr > > > > Best regards > > Alain > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Nov 21 20:17:31 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:17:31 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> <4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Marvelous method, merci, Jean-Pierre. It seems that the majority of successful nations favor player and/or pair selection, rather than team selection. We all know the negative aspect of the last. From: "jean-pierre.rocafort" +=+ i can answer for france. this year the french federation chose a new way for selection. target is next european championship (june 2012). 50 pairs were allowed to enter the scheme of selection. after 2 week-ends of preliminary competition (imp scoring), the field was reduced to 16. last week, the remaining 16 pairs played 240 deals (imp scoring) and the 8 top pairs will now form the group of players placed under the authority of a coach (kryzstof martens) to train through working meetings and friendly competitions. at last, the coach will designate among the 8 pairs the french team for the next international championships. +=+ Who pays for all this? Does France have an "International Fund" that obtains money by "taxing" entry fees, as the ACBL does on behalf of the USBF? As to imp-pair competitions, the following appeared in The Bridge World in 1961: "...an item listing the guesses of 36 so-called experts for the top three finishers in a 16-pair trial to select the U. S. international team...None of the 108 guesses named any of the top three finishing pairs...indicating that IMP pair games have a much-higher-than-one-might-expect random element, but this lesson was not taken to heart for many years." Since the guesses were part of a "sweepstakes" poll, this might not be very significant. One might enter names of non-favorites in order to maximize one's chance of not sharing a prize with others. But still... Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From adam at tameware.com Mon Nov 21 23:18:03 2011 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:18:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville (Spring 2011) NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:15 PM, I wrote: > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Louisville2011.php > > If you'd like to discuss a particular case please start a new thread > >> with the case number in the Subject: line rather than replying to this > >> message. > Comments from the panel, on both NABC+ and Non-NABC+ cases, are now included. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111121/553cbbd1/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 08:26:03 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:26:03 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> <4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com> On 21/11/2011 20:17, Marvin French wrote: > It seems that the majority of successful nations favor player and/or > pair selection, rather than team selection. We all know the negative > aspect of the last. One major disadvantage of this method is that the 6 players selected might not get along. Suppose the pairs A and B do not like pair C but they happen to finish 1 to 3 in the event. Now take these 3 pairs, lock them up in a hotel for 2 weeks and have them play bridge under a lot of stress. I'm pretty sure they will do worse than a team composed of A, B and D, where pair D knows they are the weaker of the 3 and get to play less. And in case you wonder, the Dutch team that just won the BB said that one of the important factors was that they could get along fine, if one pair didn't play that well in a session, they simply accepted that. This has been different in the past for Dutch teams. IIRC, Hamman wrote about his experiences in an old Olympiad after being selected in a similar fashion. They were not very positive. > "...an item listing the guesses of 36 so-called experts for the top > three finishers in a 16-pair trial to select the U. S. international > team...None of the 108 guesses named any of the top three finishing > pairs...indicating that IMP pair games have a > much-higher-than-one-might-expect random element, but this lesson > was not taken to heart for many years." I think this shows that one should not select based on a single event but rather look at performances over a longer period. 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 g3 at nige1.com Tue Nov 22 14:36:06 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:36:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: <4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com> References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> <4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16BD6DF5EA7047B3ADD1603841D2C3F4@G3> [Henk Uijterwaal] One major disadvantage of this method is that the 6 players selected might not get along. [Nigel] Professionals in a team with a playing sponsor naturally want stick together so as to be paid. Even in the old days, Reese is on record that he preferred team-mates who could afford to buy drinks for the team. Otherwise, IMO, Bridge is more of a partnership-game than a team-game. The personality of the captain is more important than the personalities of other team-mates. If a country opts for pairs rather than teams trials, then contenders should be asked to list other pairs, with whom they won't not play. Suppose pair A won't play with pair B but pair B doesn't object to A. If both pairs do well enough to be selected. then pair A would be dropped. A side-benefit would be a team with fewer abrasive prima donnas. There were a couple of altercations during the final of the European Club Championships that illustrated that even the most successful *pairs* don't always get on. Incidentally, why did neither attract a procedural penalty? From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 22 17:38:57 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:38:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> <4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > On 21/11/2011 20:17, Marvin French wrote: > >> It seems that the majority of successful nations favor player >> and/or >> pair selection, rather than team selection. We all know the >> negative >> aspect of the last. > > One major disadvantage of this method is that the 6 players > selected might > not get along. Thanks for your interesting comments, Henk. Whoever is doing the selecting must take that into account, meaning that 1-2-3 standings in trials competition should not be automatic qualifiers, especially since such events are not perfect in putting the best at the top. The standings should be only one criterion in the final selection, and certainly personality should be another. The person or committee charged with selection must be both knowledgeable and unbiased, which could be a problem. A very strong non-playing captain is another remedy, someone respected and liked by all. Has anyone considered testing players for substance abuse? A very sharp player can wreck a team's chances if they are "under the influence" at the table, perhaps succumbing to the pressure of international play. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Tue Nov 22 18:12:12 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:12:12 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: <9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> <4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> <4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com> <9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: For what its worth, the Dutch hosts did an unusually good job with this year'd Bermuda Bowl. As a result, the amount of raw data available for statistical analysis is much more comprehensive than usual. I tried to do some analysis trying to estimate the strength of different pairs during the course of the event. The main thing that I determined was that the variance in board results is enormous. To some extent this is explained by the fact that pairs change their bidding style across the event. For example, they'll start swinging more when they're down. Regardless, from my perspective, the only real conclusion is that you need one hell of a large sample to have any hope of accurately measuring skill. Has anyone considered testing players for substance abuse? A very > sharp player can wreck a team's chances if they are "under the > influence" at the table, perhaps succumbing to the pressure of > international play. I've long felt that it was a big mistake to start drug testing players. 1. It's immensely hypocritical to disqualify pairs from using recreational pharmaceuticals while allowing nicotine and caffeine which have real effects on concentration. 2. The health of many bridge players is spotty at best. As a result, you have numerous players with medical prescriptions for drugs that are normally banned in the Olympics. 3. On a personal level, I couldn't care less if player X wants to toke up after the match or, for that matter, during the match. 4. The players don't owe anything to me. -- 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/20111122/28416fb5/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 22 22:52:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:52:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French -> [snip] The standings should be only one criterion in the final selection [snip] Richard Hills -> Yes and No. With one minor exception(1) the philosophy of the Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory (the Tournament Organizer for Canberra representative teams) is that the standings should be the _only_ criterion in the final selection. However, Canberra players frequently modify the standings ex post facto. For example, a Canberra expert and Canberra sponsor finished second in the qualifying trials for the Interstate Teams in Melbourne, but the expert withdrew from the Canberra team due to a prior commitment. Henk Uijterwaal -> One major disadvantage of this method is that the 6 players selected might not get along. [snip] Richard Hills -> Yes and No. For the Aussie Grand National Teams, the BFACT selection process for the Canberra 1 team is a lengthy knockout teams (with Swiss repechage). Consequently the six best Canberra experts who enjoy each other's company voluntarily form a team-of-six for the event, and thereby have a laydown misere to become the Canberra 1 team. In this year's much shorter two-session qualifying event for the Canberra 2 team-of-four, with an inherently random Swiss imp pairs format, the Ali-Hills partnership was consistently running first or second for a spot in the team-of-four. But at one stage it was possible that a very weak but very lucky pair (their opponents committed hara-kiri in one match) would gain the other spot. In that case Ali-Hills would have withdrawn from the Canberra 2 team, not because we disliked that very weak pair, but rather because the pair was very weak. Fortunately in the last round a very strong youth pair (winners of the Silver Medal at the Interstate Youth Teams in Melbourne) moved into the other team-of-four spot, so we will be having an enjoyable contest this weekend at the Finals of the Grand National Teams. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) Canberra's best pair was representing Australia in India when a BFACT qualifying event was held. So BFACT offered the pair a free spot in the final; but for personal reasons the pair declined. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111122/858a3015/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Nov 22 23:31:48 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:31:48 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr><4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com><9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: From: "richard willey" (snip) > Regardless, from my perspective, the only real conclusion is that > you need > one hell of a large sample to have any hope of accurately > measuring skill. Exactly right. > >> Has anyone considered testing players for substance abuse? > > I've long felt that it was a big mistake to start drug testing > players. > > 1. It's immensely hypocritical to disqualify pairs from using > recreational pharmaceuticals while allowing nicotine and caffeine > which > have real effects on concentration. > 2. The health of many bridge players is spotty at best. As a > result, you > have numerous players with medical prescriptions for drugs that > are > normally banned in the Olympics. > 3. On a personal level, I couldn't care less if player X wants to > toke up > after the match or, for that matter, during the match. > 4. The players don't owe anything to me. Since I am forced to contribute to the USBF International Fund if I want to play in NABC+ events ($1.50 per player per session included in the $20 per session entry fee), I feel that the players do owe something to me. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Wed Nov 23 08:11:14 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:11:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> <4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> <4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com> <9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4ECC9C92.2050009@gmail.com> On 22/11/2011 18:12, richard willey wrote: > I've long felt that it was a big mistake to start drug testing players. The current list is wrong. It contains zillions of things that have no effect on bridge playing skills, while medication that does have a positive effect is not banned at all. > 1. It's immensely hypocritical to disqualify pairs from using > recreational pharmaceuticals while allowing nicotine and caffeine which have > real effects on concentration. There are limits on nicotine and caffeine (though they are such that one pretty much drink as much coffee as one likes). > 2. The health of many bridge players is spotty at best. As a result, you have > numerous players with medical prescriptions for drugs that are normally banned > in the Olympics. In that case, one can get an exception. There are standard medical documents that say that a doctor has prescribed medicine X due to a medical condition. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 23 14:33:11 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:33:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A Questionable Action In-Reply-To: <506B7FA492174965A233E67354494892@G3> References: <9ADC130B-029F-4A33-A95E-9AD5D526B306@starpower.net><8CE6DB06878665A -2BC4-C23@webmail-m136.sysops.aol.com><4EBEC296.5010902@nhcc.net><6FDF76CA- 4758-4605-A977-7949DAAE6C58@starpower.net><773091AC0B9E49AA9 EE768E7BC832D75@G3><4ECA3BFA.2030608@ulb.ac.be> <4ECA4E01.9000505@meteo.fr> <4ECA6D3E.5090900@ulb.ac.be> <506B7FA492174965A233E67354494892@G3> Message-ID: <4ECCF617.6020502@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/11/2011 18:05, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Alain] > The biggest problem, of course, is that relatively mundane 1C openings > are alerted the same way as very odd ones. Yes, I'm in favor of > double-tiered alerts. > > [Nige1] > There is also a problem is with *non-alertable* calls with several possible > meanings, to one of which, you have devised a special defence. (For > instance, in some jurisdictions, doubles or bids at the four-level). > > Suppose you have agreed a defence to "same-level conversion > takeout-doubles". You ask but the doubler's partner explains that it is an > ordinary take-out double. Unless you always ask, when you now pass, you may > imply that your hand is suitable for your convention. Some partners (maybe > not Eric landau) would be inhibited from choosing among logical > alternatives, an action suggested by this nebulous inference. > > AG : you're right. However, this shouldn't be such a big problem. There will probably be, in a given pair's agreements, only a few such cases. Simply ask or look at their CC before you start playing. You know that the problem might arise ; opponents don't ; whence it isn't at all abnormal to ask you to take necessary steps to avoid surp^rise. One more mundane example, perhaps, would be whether 1-level responses after a take-out double are forcing or not (none alertable in Belgium IIRC) ; surely some will devise differents styles by advancer. Or, more obviously, reactions to sound vs loose weak 2-bids. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 23 14:45:02 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:45:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: <9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> <4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com> <9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <9ACBD475-C82F-4605-8B53-D3BB95BE1490@starpower.net> On Nov 22, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Marvin French wrote: > From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > >> On 21/11/2011 20:17, Marvin French wrote: >> >>> It seems that the majority of successful nations favor player >>> and/or >>> pair selection, rather than team selection. We all know the >>> negative >>> aspect of the last. >> >> One major disadvantage of this method is that the 6 players >> selected might >> not get along. > > Thanks for your interesting comments, Henk. > > Whoever is doing the selecting must take that into account, meaning > that 1-2-3 standings in trials competition should not be automatic > qualifiers, especially since such events are not perfect in putting > the best at the top. The standings should be only one criterion in > the final selection, and certainly personality should be another. > The person or committee charged with selection must be both > knowledgeable and unbiased, which could be a problem. A very strong > non-playing captain is another remedy, someone respected and liked > by all. The ACBL's current method of selecting international teams via team trials was developed precisely because of the problems (both real and alleged) caused by having a "person or committee charged with selection". It may not produce the very best team, but there really is no "very best team" except in someone's opinion. Reasonable people disagree about the relative importance of team chemistry vs. technical skill. > Has anyone considered testing players for substance abuse? A very > sharp player can wreck a team's chances if they are "under the > influence" at the table, perhaps succumbing to the pressure of > international play. Apparently Marv missed the totally disastrous flap surrounding the drug testing of bridge players under IADA rules when TPTB were trying to make bridge an Olympic sport. I'd expect very little if any support for trying that again. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Nov 23 17:33:43 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:33:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@m eteo.fr> Message-ID: <4ECD2067.5090404@meteo.fr> Marvin French a ?crit : > Marvelous method, merci, Jean-Pierre. > > It seems that the majority of successful nations favor player and/or > pair selection, rather than team selection. We all know the negative > aspect of the last. > > From: "jean-pierre.rocafort" > +=+ > i can answer for france. this year the french federation chose a new > way > for selection. target is next european championship (june 2012). > 50 pairs were allowed to enter the scheme of selection. after 2 > week-ends of preliminary competition (imp scoring), the field was > reduced to 16. last week, the remaining 16 pairs played 240 deals > (imp > scoring) and the 8 top pairs will now form the group of players > placed > under the authority of a coach (kryzstof martens) to train through > working meetings and friendly competitions. at last, the coach will > designate among the 8 pairs the french team for the next > international > championships. > +=+ > > Who pays for all this? Does France have an "International Fund" that > obtains money by "taxing" entry fees, as the ACBL does on behalf of > the USBF? it's french federation (FFB) who pays: coach hiring, players'expenses for friendly and official competitions, registration fees... jpr > > As to imp-pair competitions, the following appeared in The Bridge > World in 1961: > > "...an item listing the guesses of 36 so-called experts for the top > three finishers in a 16-pair trial to select the U. S. international > team...None of the 108 guesses named any of the top three finishing > pairs...indicating that IMP pair games have a > much-higher-than-one-might-expect random element, but this lesson > was not taken to heart for many years." > > Since the guesses were part of a "sweepstakes" poll, this might not > be very significant. One might enter names of non-favorites in order > to maximize one's chance of not sharing a prize with others. But > still... > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 23 18:26:24 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:26:24 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@m eteo.fr> <4ECD2067.5090404@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre wrote; [Marv] > >> Who pays for all this? Does France have an "International Fund" >> that > obtains money by "taxing" entry fees, as the ACBL does on behalf > of > the USBF? >it's french federation (FFB) who pays: coach hiring, >players'expenses for friendly and official competitions, registration fees... And how does the FFB get its money? You haven't said. Membership fees, donations, "taxes" on entry fees for games that benefit the FFB? Who are members of the FFB? Are there two classes, a small voting class and a large and non-voting class, as in the USBF? All Americans who join the ACBL are automatically enrolled as non-voting members of the USBF. To be a voting member you have to pay $50 a year in dues. The number who do that is small, but they are in control. If it is they who determine the USA1 and USA2 team selection method, I'll give up. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 23 18:42:50 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:42:50 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr><4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com><9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> <4ECC9C92.2050009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6A132D0709434CC688B6AC2EFC43578A@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > / richard willey wrote: > >> I've long felt that it was a big mistake to start drug testing >> players. > > The current list is wrong. It contains zillions of things that > have no effect > on bridge playing skills, while medication that does have a > positive effect > is not banned at all. > >> 1. It's immensely hypocritical to disqualify pairs from using >> recreational pharmaceuticals while allowing nicotine and caffeine >> which have real effects on concentration. > > There are limits on nicotine and caffeine (though they are such > that one > pretty much drink as much coffee as one likes). >From my experience as a chain smoker when young and a caffeine user now that I am old, both help the ability to focus. Marijuana, cocaine, and other such produce a false feeling of superiority, focussed or not, leading to "macho" actions that are unsuitable for team play. Alcohol can have the same effect, but teammates are likely to outlaw drinking before a session of play. Coke on the other hand can be sniffed in private, undetectable because there is no odor. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Nov 23 18:45:08 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:45:08 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr><4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com><9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> <9ACBD475-C82F-4605-8B53-D3BB95BE1490@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" >> by all. > > The ACBL's current method of selecting international teams via > team > trials was developed precisely because of the problems (both real > and > alleged) caused by having a "person or committee charged with > selection". It may not produce the very best team, but there > really > is no "very best team" except in someone's opinion. Reasonable > people disagree about the relative importance of team chemistry > vs. > technical skill. The ACBL's current method of selecting *teams* rather than pairs or players allows rich people to buy a good team, join it, and get to represent the USA in international competition. So far, replies on this subject show that Australia, Italy, France, and the Netherlands form teams from top *players* and *pairs* whose recent and past records warrant it.. You may say this has not worked for us before, but it is sure working elsewhere. Just bar the prima donnas. > >> Has anyone considered testing players for substance abuse? A very >> sharp player can wreck a team's chances if they are "under the >> influence" at the table, perhaps succumbing to the pressure of >> international play. > > Apparently Marv missed the totally disastrous flap surrounding the > drug testing of bridge players under IADA rules when TPTB were > trying > to make bridge an Olympic sport. I'd expect very little if any > support for trying that again. Well, it works well for other forms of competition. Of course there will be huge objections, which should be ignored. This game is mostly mental, not physical, and even a small dose at nervous time can adversely affect judgment. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Nov 23 19:15:56 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:15:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@m eteo.fr><4ECD2067.5090404@met eo.fr> Message-ID: <4ECD385C.4010806@meteo.fr> Marvin French a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre wrote; > > [Marv] >>> Who pays for all this? Does France have an "International Fund" >>> that >> obtains money by "taxing" entry fees, as the ACBL does on behalf >> of >> the USBF? > >> it's french federation (FFB) who pays: coach hiring, >> players'expenses > for friendly and official competitions, registration fees... > > And how does the FFB get its money? You haven't said. as every association: from its activities: annual membership fees (105000 affiliated players), registration fees for numerous competitions it runs, taxes on club matchpointed games, publicity, sponsorship... participation to international competitions is a chapter in the expenses of ffb. > > Membership fees, donations, "taxes" on entry fees for games that > benefit the FFB? > > Who are members of the FFB? Are there two classes, a small voting > class and a large and non-voting class, as in the USBF? FFB is a pyramidal democratic organization: 105000 players affiliated in clubs who vote for a club president. club presidents vote for regional ("comite") presidents. comite presidents vote for ffb staff and ffb president. jpr > > All Americans who join the ACBL are automatically enrolled as > non-voting members of the USBF. To be a voting member you have to > pay $50 a year in dues. The number who do that is small, but they > are in control. If it is they who determine the USA1 and USA2 team > selection method, I'll give up. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com Thu Nov 24 14:33:02 2011 From: lavaldubreuil at xplornet.com (laval dubreuil) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:33:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] French Flow Charts Message-ID: <000801ccaaad$a7deea90$f79cbfb0$@com> Hi all, Dr Raghavan P.S., BLML member, offers now French and English versions of my flow chats to his website. http://www.bridgeindia.com/Bridge_Laws/WBFLaws_2007_French_version.html Feel free to use and make comments. Laval Du Breuil Adstock, Qu?bec, Canada From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 24 18:40:46 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:40:46 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Voting rights Message-ID: Does your National Bridge Federation assign voting rights to all members? The USBF denies voting rights to the vast majority of its members, with only a few hundred (paying $50 annually for the privilege) able to vote. I'm wondering if that is typical or not. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Nov 24 19:46:03 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:46:03 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Voting rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Marvin French wrote: > Does your National Bridge Federation assign voting rights to all > members? > > The USBF denies voting rights to the vast majority of its members, > with only a few hundred (paying $50 annually for the privilege) able > to vote. > > I'm wondering if that is typical or not. > In all honesty, this should be viewed as an opportunity... For the low, low price of $10,000 YOU can probably seize complete control of the USBF and appoint yourself USA1. Hell of a lot cheaper than hiring Meckwell... In all seriousness, these types of small membership organizations are inherently unstable. Its very easy for a dedicated cadre to seize control and do whatever they damn well please. -- 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/20111124/320550eb/attachment.html From jkljkl at gmx.de Thu Nov 24 19:47:21 2011 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:47:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Voting rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ECE9139.9040003@gmx.de> Hello Marvin, since this is off-topic for blml I have something to add :-) Am 24.11.2011 18:40, schrieb Marvin French: > Does your National Bridge Federation assign voting rights to all > members? DBV (Germany) Yes. But, the clubs are the members of the DBV not the players. Every club gets voting rights according to the number of players (in steps of 50 players) that are member of that club. There are two types of membership avaible to a player in a Club: - "Erstmitglied" this means the club is forwarding the annual dues of this player to the DBV and only these members of the club count for the voting rights. - "Zweitmitglied" here you only pay the club fees and nothing goes to the DBV. These members are not considered assessing the voting rights. Example Club A has 12 "First-members", ergo 1 Vote at the annual general assembly. Club B has 249 "First-members", ergo 4 Votes at the annual general assembly ciao stefan PS Adding some info about money for int. events in the DBV. The money is paid out of the annual fees of the players, revenues from selling bridge material and commercials in the bridge magazine. So I pay for instance 25 Euro as annual fee (there are no table fees to the DBV), part of it goes to the "Sport department". You can find the numbers on the homepage of the DBV if you search for Jahreshauptversammlung. On the according page look for Finanzen. For Example: http://www.bridge-verband.de/picture/doc/1734 You will see that 2010 the "Department 3 - Sport" spent 263.500 Euro This for national and international events. From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Nov 24 19:50:04 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:50:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Voting rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01d401ccaad9$e0dbad20$a2930760$@nl> Just as the French Bridge Federation the Dutch is (in theory at least) a multi stage democracy. Whether this is a well functioning democracy is something else. The vast majority of players and clubs could not care less about what happens at the top, so in practice the board of directors can more or less do whatever they want, as long as they do not piss off the silent majority. In this we do not differ too much from any democracy. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Marvin French Sent: donderdag 24 november 2011 18:41 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Voting rights Does your National Bridge Federation assign voting rights to all members? The USBF denies voting rights to the vast majority of its members, with only a few hundred (paying $50 annually for the privilege) able to vote. I'm wondering if that is typical or not. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Nov 24 21:45:59 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:45:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr><4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com><9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP> <9ACBD475-C82F-4605-8B53-D3BB95BE1490@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4ECEAD07.1080708@gmail.com> On 23/11/2011 18:45, Marvin French wrote: > The ACBL's current method of selecting *teams* rather than pairs or > players allows rich people to buy a good team, join it, and get to > represent the USA in international competition. So far, replies on > this subject show that Australia, Italy, France, and the > Netherlands form teams from top *players* and *pairs* whose recent > and past records warrant it.. You may say this has not worked for us > before, but it is sure working elsewhere. Just bar the prima donnas. I still disagree on this. Even with a playing sponsor, the US finished 1st or 2nd in every BB since 1993. That is by far the best performance of any country. 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 24 22:21:02 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:21:02 -0800 Subject: [BLML] anti-doping rules Message-ID: All who participate in the World Mind Games competition, for bridge called World Bridge Games (replacing The Olympiad), held every four years, next in 2012, must comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. Go to www.worldmindgame.net for details. If it can be done in this event, why not in all international bridge competitons? Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Nov 24 22:38:09 2011 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:38:09 +1300 Subject: [BLML] anti-doping rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As far as I am aware there has been similar rules for all of the pabf/apbf events I have played in since 2006 Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand On Nov 25, 2011 10:21 AM, "Marvin French" wrote: > All who participate in the World Mind Games competition, for bridge > called World Bridge Games (replacing The Olympiad), held every four > years, next in 2012, must comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. Go > to > > www.worldmindgame.net > > for details. If it can be done in this event, why not in all > international bridge competitons? > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.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/20111124/86bab96d/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 24 22:52:43 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:52:43 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP><4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr><4ECB4E8B.1050009@gmail.com><9C00B09167154DE7865667077A7AED64@MARVLAPTOP><9ACBD475-C82F-4605-8B53-D3BB95BE1490@starpower.net> <4ECEAD07.1080708@gmail.com> Message-ID: From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > On 23/11/2011 18:45, Marvin French wrote: > >> The ACBL's current method of selecting *teams* rather than pairs >> or >> players allows rich people to buy a good team, join it, and get >> to >> represent the USA in international competition. So far, replies >> on >> this subject show that Australia, Italy, France, and the >> Netherlands form teams from top *players* and *pairs* whose >> recent >> and past records warrant it.. You may say this has not worked for >> us >> before, but it is sure working elsewhere. Just bar the prima >> donnas. > > I still disagree on this. Even with a playing sponsor, the US > finished 1st > or 2nd in every BB since 1993. That is by far the best > performance of > any country. Well, it is a huge country, with over 140,000 players in organized bridge. Like our Olympic-dominating sports teams, there is such a large pool to draw from that success is predictable. Moreover, the USA gets to field two teams in world championships, increasing its winning chances considerably. Countries with large bridge memberships do better than others for the most part. The Netherlands with 88,000, France with 104,000. Exception that proves the rule: Italy with 30,000. Whatever, there should be a fairness principle involved with international team selection. Some of our top experts are excluded every year because amateurs, even though skillful, occupy seats that they should occupy. Skill, not money, should be the major consideration. National bridge federations should not be charitable orgnizations watching out for the well-being of hired players. The answer is to select outstanding players and pairs, not teams, and form teams with them for international competition. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Nov 24 22:56:14 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:56:14 -0800 Subject: [BLML] anti-doping rules References: Message-ID: From: "Wayne Burrows" > As far as I am aware there has been similar rules for all of the > pabf/apbf > events I have played in since 2006 > With few problems or complaints, I presume. Well done! But please don't deny me the caffeine I need to stay in focus. :-)) Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Nov 24 23:00:19 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:00:19 -0000 Subject: [BLML] anti-doping rules References: Message-ID: Try... http://www.worldmindgames.net/en/content/doping-free-mind-games-0-15297 L > All who participate in the World Mind Games competition, for bridge > called World Bridge Games (replacing The Olympiad), held every four > years, next in 2012, must comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. Go > to > > www.worldmindgame.net > > for details. If it can be done in this event, why not in all > international bridge competitons? > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Fri Nov 25 01:33:37 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:33:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Instructing the Director (was Law 64...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1322181217.42100.YahooMailNeo@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? Richard Hills -> ? "...the Laws are poorly cross-referenced. I have a Modest Proposal that what are now Law 84 (Rulings on Agreed Facts) and Law 85 (Rulings on Disputed Facts) gain their own Chapter in the revised and reformatted 2018 Lawbook." ? I can rest now :) (almost ... A revised wording/adding an extra paragraph to an existing law?is easier to do and accept than introducing a new chapter.) ? Richard Hills -> ? "...In my highly unofficial opinion, my instruction is that the key words and phrases in Law 85A are: balance of probabilities, weight of the evidence, able, collect, satisfied." ? I totally agree with your explanations, but the practice showed me that it is not so simple even for high qualified directors! ? Maybe it will be sufficient if some of these misinterpretations or misusages will be addressed in the next EBL TDs? Course. ? I hope you can make (once again) a difference with your proposal. ? Best?regards, Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111125/78fbc8c5/attachment.html From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Fri Nov 25 01:58:12 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:58:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] Teams Selection In-Reply-To: <4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> References: <0E761E47E7CC4C6892B7E256DBB463CD@MARVLAPTOP> <4ECA1C6E.5090507@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <1322182692.56184.YahooMailNeo@web65403.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? jean-pierre.rocafort -> I can answer for france. This year the french federation chose a new way for selection. Target is next european championship (june 2012). 50 pairs were allowed to enter the scheme of selection. after 2 week-ends of preliminary competition (imp scoring), the field was reduced to 16. Last week, the remaining 16 pairs played 240 deals (imp scoring) and the 8 top pairs will now form the group of players placed under the authority of a coach (kryzstof martens) to train through working meetings and friendly competitions. At last, the coach will designate among the 8 pairs the french team for the next international championships. jpr Henk Uijterwaal-> One major disadvantage of this method is that the 6 players selected might not get along. Anda: A good coach will take in consideration the likes and dislikes between potential teammates. And Krzysztof Martens is the best in this part of the world. An advice from personal experience, include the coach in the officials accompanying the team. Martens has an excellent influence on players (best seen when pressure builds up). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111125/c4b0c249/attachment.html From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 25 05:41:01 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:41:01 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite Message-ID: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> The WBFLC minutes of 20 October 2011 Item 11 seems to prompted by a request of Adam Wildavsky for an explanation of L12C1(b), because he has had a hard time understanding it. The item refers to Ton Kooiman's commentary on the Laws, saying that the WBFLC is in agreement with his explanation. I have a hard time understanding that explanation, which assumes an IMP team situation and includes the other table's results in the calculations. I believe this law can be restated in plain language, and hereby suggest my restatement for the next version of the Laws: Since the ACBL adjusts in terms of points, not in terms of matchpoints, imps, victory points, or whatever, allowing the points to lead to the effect on such erszatz scores, I shall speak only of points. L12C1(b) first sentence: If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. =+= Seems pretty clear to me now, after years of looking at it, but the ACBL LC doesn't understand it so I shall try a new version: If, after the infraction, the non-offending side damages itself with a very serious error (for the player's class) or a wild/gambling action, unrelated to the infraction, the cost in points of that error is deducted from the amount of redress due them.because of the infraction. For the mathematically challenged, an example is a one-trick revoke allowing an illegal six-spade contract to make for -1430 when the non-offenders are entitled to +980 in a six-heart contract. Cost of error, 1530 points. Normal redress of 1430 + 980 = 2410 is reduced by 1530, so only 880 points of redress. The -1430 is changed to -1430 + 880 = -550 points, the proper adjusted score for the non-offenders. If the serious error cost had been greater than 2410 points, no redress would have been given. You don't agree? Then get the law changed, because that is what it says. L12C1(b) second sentence: The offending side should be awarded the score it would have been allotted as a consequence of its infraction only +=+ Never was clear, so no wonder that the ACBL LC doesn't understand it. Here is a new version: The offending side's score adjustment must not include the benefit of a serious error, unrelated to the infraction, committed by the non-offenders after the irregularity. Not clear? Here is an example. An illegal hesitation-inspired six-spade contract is made for + 980 only because of a one-trick revoke. Score for the offending side is -50 (the revoke didn't happen) and for the non-offenders the redress of slam changed to game -980 to -480, 500 points, is compared to the cost of the revoke (980 + 50 = 1030). When the cost of a serious error is larger than the redress due because of the infraction, as in this case, then there is no redress, table result stands. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From anda_enciu at yahoo.com Fri Nov 25 09:41:19 2011 From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com (Anda Enciu) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:41:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville Non-NABC+ - Case 6 Revoke Message-ID: <1322210479.73606.YahooMailNeo@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? An interesting case of ruling on disputed facts within the correction period. ? http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Louisville2011/06-Non-NABC+.pdf ? Director ruling: table score stands = 6H down 2 Panel ruling: 6H making No PPs ? The case is commented by 6 world-class experts with extended experience on Laws and Appeals: ? 2 experts do not understand the facts and have no opinion. 1 expert has no opinion but if forced to give one it will be 6H making. 1 expert cannot understand some of the facts and suggests a PP for EW (appellant). His opinion: 6H making, which _seems_ the right thing to do. 1 expert upholds the panel ruling, 6H making. 1 expert: if the first 9 tricks are official and correctly enumerated, 6H making; if there is almost _any doubt_, then I would be inclined to give both sides an Average minus. ? I would say that there are some doubts if 2 experts out of 6 do not understand the facts and have no opinion. ? Anda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111125/2e2ce6aa/attachment-0001.html From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Fri Nov 25 11:27:47 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:27:47 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4ECF6DA3.4030604@btinternet.com> On 25/11/2011 04:41, Marvin French wrote: > I believe this law > can be restated in plain language, and hereby suggest my restatement > for the next version of the Laws: You haven't re-stated it, you've changed it entirely by attaching "unrelated to the infraction" to "wild or gambling". Gordon Rainsford From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 25 12:05:08 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:05:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> As usual Marvin computes it in total-points scoring. I really do not know why. He seems to suggest that is way the ACBL does it. If so fine for the ACBL, they do lots of other things I disagree with. But please, let nobody from the rest of the world take Marvin's computations as the way it should be done. In December 2010 I wrote the following: Let V() be the function that computes the value of a score(in matchpoint scoring the percentage, in teams the IMPs, whatever), and a pair could have scored 1430, but their opponents illegally ended up in a contract that should score them 50, but due to a serious mistake scores -980. Then the director should assign V(1430)-(V(50)-V(-980)), so the value of their due score minus the damage they did to themselves. Removing parentheses this is V(1430)-V(50)+V(-980) which is surely not the same as V(1430-50-980)=V(400). There is an extra complication in computing since it is not always possible to look up V(1430) since it might not be on the frequency table but I leave this as an exercise to the reader. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Marvin French Sent: vrijdag 25 november 2011 5:41 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite The WBFLC minutes of 20 October 2011 Item 11 seems to prompted by a request of Adam Wildavsky for an explanation of L12C1(b), because he has had a hard time understanding it. The item refers to Ton Kooiman's commentary on the Laws, saying that the WBFLC is in agreement with his explanation. I have a hard time understanding that explanation, which assumes an IMP team situation and includes the other table's results in the calculations. I believe this law can be restated in plain language, and hereby suggest my restatement for the next version of the Laws: Since the ACBL adjusts in terms of points, not in terms of matchpoints, imps, victory points, or whatever, allowing the points to lead to the effect on such erszatz scores, I shall speak only of points. L12C1(b) first sentence: If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. =+= Seems pretty clear to me now, after years of looking at it, but the ACBL LC doesn't understand it so I shall try a new version: If, after the infraction, the non-offending side damages itself with a very serious error (for the player's class) or a wild/gambling action, unrelated to the infraction, the cost in points of that error is deducted from the amount of redress due them.because of the infraction. For the mathematically challenged, an example is a one-trick revoke allowing an illegal six-spade contract to make for -1430 when the non-offenders are entitled to +980 in a six-heart contract. Cost of error, 1530 points. Normal redress of 1430 + 980 = 2410 is reduced by 1530, so only 880 points of redress. The -1430 is changed to -1430 + 880 = -550 points, the proper adjusted score for the non-offenders. If the serious error cost had been greater than 2410 points, no redress would have been given. You don't agree? Then get the law changed, because that is what it says. L12C1(b) second sentence: The offending side should be awarded the score it would have been allotted as a consequence of its infraction only +=+ Never was clear, so no wonder that the ACBL LC doesn't understand it. Here is a new version: The offending side's score adjustment must not include the benefit of a serious error, unrelated to the infraction, committed by the non-offenders after the irregularity. Not clear? Here is an example. An illegal hesitation-inspired six-spade contract is made for + 980 only because of a one-trick revoke. Score for the offending side is -50 (the revoke didn't happen) and for the non-offenders the redress of slam changed to game -980 to -480, 500 points, is compared to the cost of the revoke (980 + 50 = 1030). When the cost of a serious error is larger than the redress due because of the infraction, as in this case, then there is no redress, table result stands. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From sater at xs4all.nl Fri Nov 25 16:32:01 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:32:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> Message-ID: <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> Sorry. I used a different example December 2010. The whole point is that a score of -550 can never be right, except when using total point scoring, which nobody does anymore. You *have* to do the calculation through an indirect function, like percentages in pairs play. At the danger of offending people I will explain in very easy terms. (Jip en Janneke for Dutch speakers) Suppose NS bid 6H, which would score +1430, for a pairs score of 80% EW illegally take out with 6S, which should score NS +50 for a score of 30% Now NS revoke and let 6S make, for a score of 0% Then NS should get 80-(30-0) = 50%, and EW should of course get -1430 for a score of 20% NS should definitely *not* get the score in the frequency table for 1430-(50--980) = 400. Somehow I think that if even on BLML this is not understood it is just too complex, and we should give up. Hans -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal [mailto:fearghaloboyle at gmail.com] Sent: vrijdag 25 november 2011 16:13 To: sater at xs4all.nl Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite Hi Hans, I see you did a good job at BB well done. Maybe you have -1430 and 980 going to the wrong opponents in Marvin's example? If he is saying that we adjust NOS to -550 and OS to -1430 then he is ok and I think your V formula will get there too? Fearghal On 25 Nov 2011, at 11:05, "Hans van Staveren" wrote: > As usual Marvin computes it in total-points scoring. I really do not know > why. He seems to suggest that is way the ACBL does it. If so fine for the > ACBL, they do lots of other things I disagree with. > > But please, let nobody from the rest of the world take Marvin's computations > as the way it should be done. > > In December 2010 I wrote the following: > Let V() be the function that computes the value of a score(in matchpoint > scoring the percentage, in teams the IMPs, whatever), and a pair could have > scored 1430, but their opponents illegally ended up in a contract that > should score them 50, but due to a serious mistake scores -980. Then the > director should assign V(1430)-(V(50)-V(-980)), so the value of their due > score minus the damage they did to themselves. Removing parentheses this is > V(1430)-V(50)+V(-980) which is surely not the same as V(1430-50-980)=V(400). > > There is an extra complication in computing since it is not always possible > to look up V(1430) since it might not be on the frequency table but I leave > this as an exercise to the reader. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Marvin French > Sent: vrijdag 25 november 2011 5:41 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite > > The WBFLC minutes of 20 October 2011 Item 11 seems to prompted > by a request of Adam Wildavsky for an explanation of L12C1(b), > because he has had a hard time understanding it. The item refers to > Ton > Kooiman's commentary on the Laws, saying that the WBFLC is in > agreement with his explanation. I have a hard time understanding > that explanation, which assumes an IMP team situation and includes > the other table's results in the calculations. I believe this law > can be restated in plain language, and hereby suggest my restatement > for the next version of the Laws: Since the ACBL adjusts in terms of > points, not in terms of matchpoints, imps, victory points, or > whatever, allowing the points to lead to the effect on such erszatz > scores, I shall speak only of points. > > L12C1(b) first sentence: > > If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has > contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the > infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive > relief for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. > =+= > Seems pretty clear to me now, after years of looking at it, but the > ACBL LC doesn't understand it so I shall try a new version: > > If, after the infraction, the non-offending side damages itself with > a very serious error (for the player's class) or a wild/gambling > action, unrelated to the infraction, the cost in points of that > error is deducted from the amount of redress due them.because of the > infraction. > > For the mathematically challenged, an example is a one-trick revoke > allowing an illegal six-spade contract to make for -1430 when the > non-offenders are entitled to +980 in a six-heart contract. Cost of > error, 1530 points. Normal redress of 1430 + 980 = 2410 is reduced > by 1530, so only 880 points of redress. The -1430 is changed > to -1430 + 880 = -550 points, the proper adjusted score for the > non-offenders. If the serious error cost had been greater than 2410 > points, no redress would have been given. > > You don't agree? Then get the law changed, because that is what it > says. > > L12C1(b) second sentence: > > The offending side should be awarded the score it would have been > allotted as a consequence of its infraction only > +=+ > Never was clear, so no wonder that the ACBL LC doesn't understand > it. Here is a new version: > > The offending side's score adjustment must not include the benefit > of a serious error, unrelated to the infraction, committed by the > non-offenders after the irregularity. > > Not clear? Here is an example. An illegal hesitation-inspired > six-spade contract is made for + 980 only because of a one-trick > revoke. Score for the offending side is -50 (the revoke didn't > happen) and for the non-offenders the redress of slam changed to > game -980 to -480, 500 points, is compared to the cost of the revoke > (980 + 50 = 1030). When the cost of a serious error is larger than > the redress due because of the infraction, as in this case, then > there is no redress, table result stands. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Nov 25 16:39:13 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:39:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Law_12C1=28b=29_rewrite?= In-Reply-To: <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> References: <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> Message-ID: <1RTxrt-1mA0lE0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Hans van Staveren" > At the danger of offending people I will explain in very easy terms. > > Somehow I think that if even on BLML this is not understood it is just > too complex, and we should give up. rofl ;-) From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Nov 25 17:19:35 2011 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:19:35 -0600 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville Non-NABC+ - Case 6 Revoke In-Reply-To: <1322210479.73606.YahooMailNeo@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <1322210479.73606.YahooMailNeo@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:41:19 -0800 > From: anda_enciu at yahoo.com > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville Non-NABC+ - Case 6 Revoke > > > An interesting case of ruling on disputed facts within the correction period. > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Louisville2011/06-Non-NABC+.pdf > > Director ruling: table score stands = 6H down 2 > Panel ruling: 6H making > No PPs > > The case is commented by 6 world-class experts with extended experience > on Laws and > Appeals: > > 2 experts do not understand the facts and have no opinion. > 1 expert has no opinion but if forced to give one it will be 6H making. > 1 expert cannot understand some of the facts and suggests a PP for EW > (appellant). His > opinion: 6H making, which _seems_ the right thing to do. > 1 expert upholds the panel ruling, 6H making. > 1 expert: if the first 9 tricks are official and correctly enumerated, > 6H making; if > there is almost _any doubt_, then I would be inclined to give both > sides an Average > minus. > > I would say that there are some doubts if 2 experts out of 6 do not > understand the > facts and have no opinion. > > Anda Which reminds me of an anecdote from fifteen years ago. After a week of abuse from the directing staff came this bum ruling. That it came from Rick Beye, the TD that I consider to be the most capable on the continent, whom I love like a bo love like a brother and I think the world of did little to improve my disposition: My partner revoked and the director was called at the end of the hand. He verified the revoke and assessed the penalty. I then suggested it was possible that my opponent might have been disadvantaged in the play. He took the board and came back 20 minutes later to advise that there was no 64C adjustment. Of course there can be no 64C adjustment since no one knew what the remaining cards were. Returning to Louisville I am as disgusted with all the authorities- the directors, AC, and commentators. Both sides agreed to the first 8 tricks. Declarer claimed to remember T9 [at least in part; and the defenders claimed to remember T13 [at least in part]. Both agree that they don?t otherwise remember T9-13. Both sides agreed to the table result [best evidence] of down two and did not dispute it. The cards had been mixed prior to playing another board. The assertion of a revoke was first made after the conclusion of the round. 1. the time to penalize has expired. 2. to adjust for indemnity there must have been a revoke. since the cards have been mixed and neither side remembers the tricks let alone the asserted revoke trick there is no basis for finding that a revoke did indeed occur. That sane and competent people do not find a route to the table result does not mean that [these] insane and comatose people didn?t. as close as the table TD came to getting it right he didn?t give the proper reason that 64C does not provide an adjustment [he didn?t mention 64C] 3. as for the notion of getting correct the tricks actually taken [as in L79] there was no dispute over it and without concurrence of both sides there is no basis possible for finding differently than the agreed score;?and there is basis for not finding differently regards roger pewick From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Nov 25 17:56:43 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:56:43 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Correction to laws -- eliminate L64B7 In-Reply-To: <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> References: <002001cca2ea$ae740db0$0b5c2910$@online.no> <1RQ0m8-0lOjfk0@fwd25.aul.t-online.de> <4EC478BD.3020908@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:00:13 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > On 11/14/2011 1:22 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Before the second revoke, equity was 10 tricks to declarer. > > Right: 9 tricks in play plus the penalty trick to come. The second > revoke cancels the penalty trick, and L64C takes away any tricks gained > from the second revoke. > >> (That is >> exactly how we would calculate it if the defending side had made the >> second revoke.) > > That's how I'd calculate it, but I think not everyone agrees. > >> I would love to be able to say this ruling was actually ambiguous > > There are plenty of ambiguities in TFLB, but this isn't one of them. Is this situation ambiguous? Suppose declarer is on track to make 9 tricks at his 2 Spades contract for +140. The defense revokes in a way that gains them a trick and changes play, leaving declarer on track to take 8 tricks and a 1-trick revoke penalty for the same +140. Now declarer revokes in a way that does not affect play. So declarer takes 8 tricks. How do you rule? This would be an unambiguous +110 for Steve and I *if* the first revoke did not change play. As described, there is no gain from the first revoke and no gain from the second revoke. Actually, there is a loss from the second revoke, but that is business as usual for a revoke that does not affect play. So no rectification. (And if you apply L64C, then L12 still leads to no rectification.) WRONG WAYS OF CALCULATING THIS You could "batch" the revokes and calculate equity by asking what would have been the result without them. The answer is +140. Everyone agrees this is the wrong procedure. Or, and I suspect this is common, you could *first* remove the revoke penalties and *then* calculate equity for each revoke separately. Then the defense gained by its revoke. One problem with this method is that -- at least for the simple cases we are considering -- it comes to the same answer as batching. It also seems inconsistent with the WBFLC minute on this: "When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs." You clearly would not be considering each revoke separately because you have to consider them together to get the first penalty to disappear. THE PROBLEM Anyway. Suppose the revoke by the defense did affect play. (Declarer decided to take a line of play based on a presumed bad trump break that led to one less trick as the cards lay.) Is it the same +110? You could say that if the first revoke didn't occur, the second revoke wouldn't have occurred. That could lead to a ruling of +140 when you correct for equity on the first revoke. Or would the second revoke count as an egregious error and you would give a split ruling of +110/+140? Or maybe it is unambiguously either of the last two and just director's judgment which one to choose? Bob From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 25 23:19:51 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:19:51 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> Message-ID: <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Hans van Staveren" > The whole point is that a score of -550 can never be right, except > when > using total point scoring, which nobody does anymore. Rubber bridge players use total point scoring. A weird score resulting from comparison with a Butler datum is accepted all over the world. WTP? Consider that for a moment. You compare your score with the datum, find the difference, and based on that point calculation look up the imp score for that result. Points translated into imps. Always start with points when determining matchpoints or imps, and that applies to score adjustments. Where is that contradicted in L12C1(b)? >Somehow I think that if even on BLML this is not understood it is >just too complex, and we should give up. It is very simple. Subtract self-inflicted damage from consequent damage when determining redress for the non-offenders. If the former is greater, no redress. It's called arithmetic. The initial scoring of the game is in points. Only when the correct points are determined are they translated into matchpoints, imps, and sometimes victory points. Don't put the cart before the horse. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Nov 25 23:48:04 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:48:04 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> Message-ID: <4A4BD5A4468B46E79C8130BD281172FB@MARVLAPTOP> Hans van Staveren wrote: > As usual Marvin computes it in total-points scoring. I really do > not know > why. He seems to suggest that is way the ACBL does it. If so fine > for the > ACBL, they do lots of other things I disagree with. Me too. But not this one. > But please, let nobody from the rest of the world take Marvin's > computations as the way it should be done. I can't find anything in the Laws that says to do it otherwise. Have I missed something? > > In December 2010 I wrote the following: > Let V() be the function that computes the value of a score(in > matchpoint > scoring the percentage, in teams the IMPs, whatever), and a pair > could have > scored 1430, but their opponents illegally ended up in a contract > that > should score them 50, but due to a serious mistake scores -980. > Then the > director should assign V(1430)-(V(50)-V(-980)), so the value of > their due > score minus the damage they did to themselves. Removing > parentheses this is > V(1430)-V(50)+V(-980) which is surely not the same as > V(1430-50-980)=V(400). > > There is an extra complication in computing since it is not always > possible > to look up V(1430) since it might not be on the frequency table > but I leave > this as an exercise to the reader. Not this reader, thank you. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 26 00:14:11 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:14:11 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <4ECF6DA3.4030604@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <031890DDA0B64F788CEE351919225CB1@MARVLAPTOP> Gordon Raisford wrote: > On 25/11/2011 04:41, Marvin French wrote: >> I believe this law >> can be restated in plain language, and hereby suggest my >> restatement >> for the next version of the Laws: > > You haven't re-stated it, you've changed it entirely by attaching > "unrelated to the infraction" to "wild or gambling". > Perhaps my English faltered here. Let's take a look: If, after the infraction, the non-offending side damages itself with a very serious error (for the player's class) or a wild/gambling action, unrelated to the infraction, the cost in points of that error is deducted from the amount of redress due them.because of the infraction. The comma after "action," together with no comma after "error," was meant to show that "unrelated to the infraction" applies to both serious errors and WoGs. That is part of my rewrite, as the existing law treats WoGs differently, as you point out. I should have said something about that. I believe if either the serious error or WoG is somehow related to the infraction, redress may not be adversely affected. Grattan has said, if I remember right, that serious errors and WoGs are treated identically. If so, the current law is puncutated incorrectly, which is why I changed it. I have never been able to think of a serious error or WoG that could be related to the infraction. but that's not my job. I'll leave that to Richard. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From bpark56 at comcast.net Sat Nov 26 01:33:16 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 19:33:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <4ED033CC.5030103@comcast.net> On 11/24/11 11:41 PM, Marvin French wrote: > The WBFLC minutes of 20 October 2011 Item 11 seems to prompted > by a request of Adam Wildavsky for an explanation of L12C1(b), > because he has had a hard time understanding it. The item refers to > Ton > Kooiman's commentary on the Laws, saying that the WBFLC is in > agreement with his explanation. I have a hard time understanding > that explanation, which assumes an IMP team situation and includes > the other table's results in the calculations. I believe this law > can be restated in plain language, and hereby suggest my restatement > for the next version of the Laws: Since the ACBL adjusts in terms of > points, not in terms of matchpoints, imps, victory points, or > whatever, allowing the points to lead to the effect on such erszatz > scores, I shall speak only of points. > > L12C1(b) first sentence: > > If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has > contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the > infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive > relief for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. > =+= > Seems pretty clear to me now, after years of looking at it, but the > ACBL LC doesn't understand it so I shall try a new version: > > If, after the infraction, the non-offending side damages itself with > a very serious error (for the player's class) or a wild/gambling > action, unrelated to the infraction, the cost in points of that > error is deducted from the amount of redress due them.because of the > infraction. > > For the mathematically challenged, an example is a one-trick revoke > allowing an illegal six-spade contract to make for -1430 when the > non-offenders are entitled to +980 in a six-heart contract. Cost of > error, 1530 points. Normal redress of 1430 + 980 = 2410 is reduced > by 1530, so only 880 points of redress. The -1430 is changed > to -1430 + 880 = -550 points, the proper adjusted score for the > non-offenders. If the serious error cost had been greater than 2410 > points, no redress would have been given. > > You don't agree? Then get the law changed, because that is what it > says. > > L12C1(b) second sentence: > > The offending side should be awarded the score it would have been > allotted as a consequence of its infraction only > +=+ > Never was clear, so no wonder that the ACBL LC doesn't understand > it. Here is a new version: > > The offending side's score adjustment must not include the benefit > of a serious error, unrelated to the infraction, committed by the > non-offenders after the irregularity. > > Not clear? Here is an example. An illegal hesitation-inspired > six-spade contract is made for + 980 only because of a one-trick > revoke. Score for the offending side is -50 (the revoke didn't > happen) and for the non-offenders the redress of slam changed to > game -980 to -480, 500 points, is compared to the cost of the revoke > (980 + 50 = 1030). When the cost of a serious error is larger than > the redress due because of the infraction, as in this case, then > there is no redress, table result stands. > That doesn't seem right...or at least it's not fair. Had there not been an irregularity by the declaring side, defender's would not have been defending at the 6-level. Your computation in effect penalizes defenders for an irregularity by the declaring side! On top of that, defender's whole thought process was likely different when defending (unjustifiably) at the 6-level than at the 4-level. It seems to me that the damage defenders inflicted on themselves in your example is clearly 'related to' the previous irregularity by the declaring side. So the rule you are attempting to use should not apply. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Nov 26 05:30:39 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:30:39 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <4ED033CC.5030103@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9CCA70FAD19D490D83B8C78D2D4C95D6@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Robert Park" > That doesn't seem right...or at least it's not fair. Had there not > been > an irregularity by the declaring side, defender's would not have > been > defending at the 6-level. Your computation in effect penalizes > >defenders > for an irregularity by the declaring side! On top of that, > defender's > whole thought process was likely different when defending > (unjustifiably) at the 6-level than at the 4-level. > > It seems to me that the damage defenders inflicted on themselves > in your > example is clearly 'related to' the previous irregularity by the > declaring side. So the rule you are attempting to use should not > apply. Not my rule. "The non-offenders should never have been put in that position," an opinion held by even some top-level TDs, does not accord with the L12C1(b). It is logical, sensible perhaps, but you have to seek a change to the law to justifiy it. "Related to" does not have the intent you ascribe to it. Just because it precedes the serious error does not mean there is necessarily a relationship between the two. I think I remeber David Stevenson and others long ago agreeing that mental distress caused by the infraction cannot be used to excuse a revoke or other serious error. I am off to the Seattle NABC, so nothing from me for ten days or so. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Sat Nov 26 10:23:23 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:23:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4ED033CC.5030103@comcast.net> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <4ED033CC.5030103@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000601ccac1d$0c99d920$25cd8b60$@online.no> > Robert Park ...... > That doesn't seem right...or at least it's not fair. Had there not been an > irregularity by the declaring side, defender's would not have been defending > at the 6-level. Your computation in effect penalizes defenders for an > irregularity by the declaring side! On top of that, defender's whole thought > process was likely different when defending > (unjustifiably) at the 6-level than at the 4-level. > > It seems to me that the damage defenders inflicted on themselves in your > example is clearly 'related to' the previous irregularity by the declaring side. > So the rule you are attempting to use should not apply. [Sven Pran] Even when placed in an unfavorably or difficult situation by opponents' irregularity you are supposed to continue "playing bridge". If you defend badly at the 6-level it is no excuse that you should never have had to defend at this level. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Nov 26 17:11:35 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:35 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: "Marvin French" writes: > It is very simple. Subtract self-inflicted damage from consequent > damage when determining redress for the non-offenders. If the former > is greater, no redress. It's called arithmetic. > > The initial scoring of the game is in points. Only when the correct > points are determined are they translated into matchpoints, imps, > and sometimes victory points. Don't put the cart before the horse. The difference is that players make their decisions with respect to the scoring, not the points. If you are playing 3NT and you can see that the MP field is likely to be in 4S, then you don't look at +400, +430, and +460 as being equally separated scores; if 4S is +450, the difference between +460 and +430 is much greater than the difference between +400 and +430. Now, suppose you have made an abnormal play in 3NT and you get +400 for 1 matchpoint when you could have had +430 for 1.5. At the end of the hand, you discover that you were misinformed and would have been in 4S with proper information. The director rules MI, but also determines that your play in 3NT was self-inflicted damage. I would say that the self-inflicted damage was a loss of 0.5 matchpoint by your careless play, so you should get 6.5 matchpoints instead of the 7 for +450. If you adjust the raw score, then you get 1 matchpoint for +420. It's even more of an issue with percentage adjustments. At board-a-match, N-S play in 6C for +1370 at both tables. At one table, the TD makes an incorrect ruling, and had there been a correct ruling, N-S would have reached 6S. The TD/AC determines that there is a possible defense which beats 6S but it will only be found 10% of the time. Thus, had there been no infraction, N-S would win the board 90% of the time and lose it 10% of the time. That seems to be a fair adjustment. If you use the raw scores, then N-S gets 90% of +1430 and 10% of -100, which is +1317, and loses the whole board; now, it is E-W who were damaged by the error. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Nov 28 02:34:23 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:34:23 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same suit) Message-ID: L64B2 reads: "There is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke if it is subsequent revoke in t he same suit by the same player." Suppose declarer revokes in diamonds but corrects the revoke before it is established. Declarer later makes an established revoke in diamonds. Is there any "rectification as in A" for the second revoke? According the current version of L64B2, there isn't. No one seems to actually want to rule that way. Still, the current law has caused confusion and should be fixed. One seemingly reasonable fix is to require the first revoke to be established. This change can be easily made (changing "subsequent revoke" to "subsequent *established* revoke"). Though more wordy, I suspect the better fix is to require the first revoke to receive a "rectification as in A". This probably better fits the intention of the WBFLC. It also better handles the following situation: Defender revokes in diamonds. The revoke is established but unnoticed. The defender then revokes again in diamonds. This revoke is established, discovered, and the director rules a 1 trick penalty. Neither revoke actually affects play. After the next hand is started, the defender points out the first revoke. There is no penalty for the first revoke (L64B4). Should the penalty for the second revoke be removed? I am guessing people will not like removing the penalty for the second revoke just because the player has confessed to a prior revoke. That suggests that L64B2 should apply only when the first revoke receives a rectification as in A. Comments? Criticisms? From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 28 08:03:08 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:03:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same suit) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009501ccad9b$c99800e0$5cc802a0$@nl> In Dutch we would call this mierenneuken It is clear that 64B2 handles two established revokes in the same suit by the same player. If the first was not established it must have been corrected so is no longer a revoke. In the second case saying there is no penalty for the first revoke because of 64B4 is mierenneuken again, given infinite time the TD would have found this at the time of the second revoke, so it is clear 64B4 does not apply in this way. I agree that the laws could be worded a bit better, but no reasonable person can misapply them. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Robert Frick Sent: maandag 28 november 2011 2:34 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same suit) L64B2 reads: "There is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke if it is subsequent revoke in t he same suit by the same player." Suppose declarer revokes in diamonds but corrects the revoke before it is established. Declarer later makes an established revoke in diamonds. Is there any "rectification as in A" for the second revoke? According the current version of L64B2, there isn't. No one seems to actually want to rule that way. Still, the current law has caused confusion and should be fixed. One seemingly reasonable fix is to require the first revoke to be established. This change can be easily made (changing "subsequent revoke" to "subsequent *established* revoke"). Though more wordy, I suspect the better fix is to require the first revoke to receive a "rectification as in A". This probably better fits the intention of the WBFLC. It also better handles the following situation: Defender revokes in diamonds. The revoke is established but unnoticed. The defender then revokes again in diamonds. This revoke is established, discovered, and the director rules a 1 trick penalty. Neither revoke actually affects play. After the next hand is started, the defender points out the first revoke. There is no penalty for the first revoke (L64B4). Should the penalty for the second revoke be removed? I am guessing people will not like removing the penalty for the second revoke just because the player has confessed to a prior revoke. That suggests that L64B2 should apply only when the first revoke receives a rectification as in A. Comments? Criticisms? _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 28 13:51:28 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:51:28 -0000 Subject: [BLML] FW: BLML Message-ID: Grattan References: Message-ID: <4ED3A06A.4030709@gmail.com> Anna, > Since I have no idea how to post to BLML could you either a) enlighten me or b) > let them know that the Laws Committee Minutes and your invitation are linked > from the front page of my website at www.ecatsbridge.com > ... To subscribe: Go to http://www.rtflb.org and click on subscribe to the list. To post: send mail to blml at rtflb.org Note that postings to the list by non-subscribers are automatically discarded. 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 sater at xs4all.nl Mon Nov 28 17:18:06 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:18:06 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> Although I agree about 99% with David, his example about the +400 vs +430, when +450 is normal already shows something. He makes the diff 0.5 MP (American style of course). Now I want to add something: if the player in a wild and desperate attempt to get +460, when +430 is cold, ends up with +400 the TD should almost never see this as a serious error. The player played good bridge, trying to beat the +450. How can this error be serious, if it only costs 0.5 MP, and could gain something like 8? But of course we do not have the hand, so his example could well be right, and certainly is right in the calculation part. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: zaterdag 26 november 2011 17:12 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite "Marvin French" writes: > It is very simple. Subtract self-inflicted damage from consequent > damage when determining redress for the non-offenders. If the former > is greater, no redress. It's called arithmetic. > > The initial scoring of the game is in points. Only when the correct > points are determined are they translated into matchpoints, imps, > and sometimes victory points. Don't put the cart before the horse. The difference is that players make their decisions with respect to the scoring, not the points. If you are playing 3NT and you can see that the MP field is likely to be in 4S, then you don't look at +400, +430, and +460 as being equally separated scores; if 4S is +450, the difference between +460 and +430 is much greater than the difference between +400 and +430. Now, suppose you have made an abnormal play in 3NT and you get +400 for 1 matchpoint when you could have had +430 for 1.5. At the end of the hand, you discover that you were misinformed and would have been in 4S with proper information. The director rules MI, but also determines that your play in 3NT was self-inflicted damage. I would say that the self-inflicted damage was a loss of 0.5 matchpoint by your careless play, so you should get 6.5 matchpoints instead of the 7 for +450. If you adjust the raw score, then you get 1 matchpoint for +420. It's even more of an issue with percentage adjustments. At board-a-match, N-S play in 6C for +1370 at both tables. At one table, the TD makes an incorrect ruling, and had there been a correct ruling, N-S would have reached 6S. The TD/AC determines that there is a possible defense which beats 6S but it will only be found 10% of the time. Thus, had there been no infraction, N-S would win the board 90% of the time and lose it 10% of the time. That seems to be a fair adjustment. If you use the raw scores, then N-S gets 90% of +1430 and 10% of -100, which is +1317, and loses the whole board; now, it is E-W who were damaged by the error. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Mon Nov 28 21:19:36 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:19:36 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> Message-ID: A better rewrite would be to scrap any allusion to wild/gambling/serious error. This law may have originated because, playing against a palooka, an expert committed an infraction. Naturally, he deemed it unfair that, just because his rabbit opponent noticed and reported his infraction, he should be deprived of his rightful good score. Law-makers would be delighted to pander to this expert view because this argument coincides with their perverted concept of "Equity". Anyway, If that is the intention of the current law. then it is a great success, because. after opponent's infraction, 1. A palooka, who makes a serious error, or imagines that he has, is reluctant to call the director, fearing that the director will just add insult to injury. 2. In practice, an expert, who makes a serious error, can usually persuade the director that it is a minor mistake or an expert ploy. 3. Few directors understand the law (there is ample confirmation , as far as this law is concerned, in the many cases, discussed on BLML). In practice when an expert alleges that a palooka opponent commits a "serious error", the director's ruling often seems illegal and always appears to be generous to the expert. 4. Even fewer players understand the law. Perhaps Just as well, in the case of this law, because ignorance may be bliss, when rulings are so unfair. Experts can expect to continue to benefit from favourable treatment from this law, until law-makers and directors tire of discussing its daft ramifications and the resulting intriguing cases. Sophisticated nonsense (like this law) adds no value and has no place in the rules of a game. Directors and law-makers are "in denial". It would be wonderful if a law-maker/director BLMLer would don his player hat, for long enough to sympathise with the plight of the ordinary player. From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Nov 29 00:12:17 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:12:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP><021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl><12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> Message-ID: <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> I happen to be a player too. This law is good and necessary. If it was not there players would have the dreaded and much discussed double shot. This is the no-double-shot law. I know I am against Marvin Total-Points, and Nigel Directors-Are-Ivory-Tower-Loonies, But I still think there is nothing wrong with this law. It certainly is not unfair. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie Sent: maandag 28 november 2011 21:20 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite A better rewrite would be to scrap any allusion to wild/gambling/serious error. This law may have originated because, playing against a palooka, an expert committed an infraction. Naturally, he deemed it unfair that, just because his rabbit opponent noticed and reported his infraction, he should be deprived of his rightful good score. Law-makers would be delighted to pander to this expert view because this argument coincides with their perverted concept of "Equity". Anyway, If that is the intention of the current law. then it is a great success, because. after opponent's infraction, 1. A palooka, who makes a serious error, or imagines that he has, is reluctant to call the director, fearing that the director will just add insult to injury. 2. In practice, an expert, who makes a serious error, can usually persuade the director that it is a minor mistake or an expert ploy. 3. Few directors understand the law (there is ample confirmation , as far as this law is concerned, in the many cases, discussed on BLML). In practice when an expert alleges that a palooka opponent commits a "serious error", the director's ruling often seems illegal and always appears to be generous to the expert. 4. Even fewer players understand the law. Perhaps Just as well, in the case of this law, because ignorance may be bliss, when rulings are so unfair. Experts can expect to continue to benefit from favourable treatment from this law, until law-makers and directors tire of discussing its daft ramifications and the resulting intriguing cases. Sophisticated nonsense (like this law) adds no value and has no place in the rules of a game. Directors and law-makers are "in denial". It would be wonderful if a law-maker/director BLMLer would don his player hat, for long enough to sympathise with the plight of the ordinary player. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 29 01:02:01 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:02:01 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Notes and Queries, 11th February 1893 -> Let your conversation possess a clarified conciseness, compacted comprehensibleness, coalescent consistency, and a concatenated cogency. Eschew all conglomerations of flatulent garrulity, jejune babblement, and asinine affectations. Let your extemporaneous descantings and unpremeditated expatiations have intelligibility, without rhodomontade or thrasonical bombast. Sedulously avoid all polysyllabical profundity, pompous prolixity, and ventriloquial vapidity. Shun double-entendre and prurient jocosity, whether obscure or apparent. In other words, speak truthfully, naturally, clearly, purely, but do not use large words. WBF Laws Committee minutes 18th October 2011, item 6 -> The committee confirmed once again that if a player?s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ?pause for thought? should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows: ?A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error.? The question is referred for further examination in the next review of the Laws. WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 7 -> When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the call withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an unintended call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies. WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 9 -> A determination as between the application of Law 25A and the application of Law 25B is a matter for the Director. The first condition for application of 25A is that partner must not have called subsequently; this is a question of fact for the Director. Where they apply, bidding box regulations may contain a relevant statement and should be read. WBF Laws Committee minutes 20th October 2011, item 10 -> The committee discussed what is understood by a ?mechanical error? in using a bidding box. The term applies to the case where the player intends to call ?x? and thinks ?x? but his fingers inadvertently pull out ?y? from the bidding box. As an example: North.....East......South.....West ...............1H........Pass......2C........Pass ...............Pass where 2C shows Hearts support and is invitational. This Pass by North was most probably intentional (i.e. not mechanical) and so can not be changed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111129/3edfec03/attachment-0001.html From g3 at nige1.com Tue Nov 29 01:41:22 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:41:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Players often make a call that they quickly realise is a mistake. Most such errors are slips of the mind not the hand. The laws should not give special dispensation to plausible liars and rationalisers, while penalizing honest players. For example, the law should insist that the mistaken call stands. At Reading Bridge Club, David Barnes says that the only player he knew who could legitimately claim mechanical error was Willy Brown who had lost feeling in his hands. Obviously, In such (rare) cases, players should allow the ?offender? to correct his mistake or ask the director to waive the law. Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another example of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111129/b2d74115/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 29 04:32:26 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:32:26 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same suit) In-Reply-To: <009501ccad9b$c99800e0$5cc802a0$@nl> References: <009501ccad9b$c99800e0$5cc802a0$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:03:08 -0500, Hans van Staveren wrote: > In Dutch we would call this mierenneuken I can say "It is an important rule to be very careful to spill coffee or other liquids on your computer." Some people will get the good meaning without blinking. Some will blink and assume they read it wrong and that the good meaning is what I said. A few people will blink twice, reread the sentence, and decide that I must have left out the word "not". Is that mierenneuken? And if I am a trusted authority, a few people without the necessary background information will spill coffee on their computer. We know at least one person was puzzled by this law. If I get a reputation for making these errors, then no one will trust anything I say. Is that a good thing for the lawbooks to do? And it is a fact that I cannot use the lawbook by itself to support my argument for what a ruling should be. > > It is clear that 64B2 handles two established revokes in the same suit by > the same player. If the first was not established it must have been > corrected so is no longer a revoke. The first problem is that no one thinks this way. We do not ask questions like, "Does the revoke still exist?" nor do we consider them sensible questions if someone else asks them. The laws are written as if the revoke is still a revoke even though it is corrected. And I don't think anyone would think badly of the phrase "corrected revoke". Oxymoron? I don't think so. The second problem is that if a player revokes in a way that costs a trick, and the opponents have an unestablished revoke, that player is going to read L64B7 and say, "According to this law, I should not get a 1-trick penalty". That player will be absolutely right. Who could blame them for being unhappy with that ruling? And directors should be able to show players the lawbook in order to support their ruling. When we have to start hiding the lawbook and hoping they don't read it, there is something rotten. I really do not like when that happens to me, and it makes me unhappy with the lawbook. Of course, any club director would be an idiot not to give a split score in this case. And if he didn't, the idiot would deserve all the grief he got. The third problem is the way L64B2 and B7 are written. If it said that there is no penalty for an established revoked when the opponents made a revoke *that still exists*, then you would have a really good argument. But it doesn't say that, or anything like it. The fourth problem is this. I asked Richard how he would make various rulings and he answered. I pointed out that he wasn't following Grattan's principle, which is what you are using. He said he was. I pointed out that his predictions didn't follow that principle. He still didn't get it, or at least never corrected it. So, probably because no one thinks this way, it is difficult to rule this way. (I think the problem was when one of the revokes was a missing card for L64B7). Similarly I suspect no one will like taking away all the revoke penalties in my example below. (The first revoke is not penalized because it was noted after the start of the next board; the second revoke is not penalized, according to Hans, because there there was a previous revoke by the same person in the same suit which was not corrected.) If the mierenneuken is keeping at least 1 revoke penalty, I think the laws should be written that way. There are a lot of advantages to having the laws correspond to how we are going to rule. Am I missing something? > In the second case saying there is no penalty for the first revoke > because > of 64B4 is mierenneuken again, given infinite time the TD would have > found > this at the time of the second revoke, so it is clear 64B4 does not > apply in > this way. > I agree that the laws could be worded a bit better, but no reasonable > person > can misapply them. > > Hans > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Robert Frick > Sent: maandag 28 november 2011 2:34 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same > suit) > > L64B2 reads: "There is no rectification as in A above following an > established revoke if it is subsequent revoke in t he same suit by the > same player." > > Suppose declarer revokes in diamonds but corrects the revoke before it is > established. Declarer later makes an established revoke in diamonds. Is > there any "rectification as in A" for the second revoke? > > According the current version of L64B2, there isn't. No one seems to > actually want to rule that way. Still, the current law has caused > confusion and should be fixed. > > One seemingly reasonable fix is to require the first revoke to be > established. This change can be easily made (changing "subsequent revoke" > to "subsequent *established* revoke"). > > Though more wordy, I suspect the better fix is to require the first > revoke > to receive a "rectification as in A". This probably better fits the > intention of the WBFLC. It also better handles the following situation: > > Defender revokes in diamonds. The revoke is established but unnoticed. > The > defender then revokes again in diamonds. This revoke is established, > discovered, and the director rules a 1 trick penalty. Neither revoke > actually affects play. After the next hand is started, the defender > points > out the first revoke. There is no penalty for the first revoke (L64B4). > Should the penalty for the second revoke be removed? > > I am guessing people will not like removing the penalty for the second > revoke just because the player has confessed to a prior revoke. That > suggests that L64B2 should apply only when the first revoke receives a > rectification as in A. > > > Comments? Criticisms? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Nov 29 04:40:39 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:40:39 +1100 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville Non-NABC+ - Case 6 Revoke [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1322210479.73606.YahooMailNeo@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anda Enciu -> [snip] The case is commented by 6 world-class experts with extended experience on Laws and Appeals: [snip] 1 expert: if the first 9 tricks are official and correctly enumerated, 6H making; if there is almost _any doubt_, then I would be inclined to give both sides an Average minus. I would say that there are some doubts if 2 experts out of 6 do not understand the facts and have no opinion. Anda Richard Hills -> I am totally unsurprised that after the disputed revoke the so-called expert who advocated an illegal ruling of Ave- to both sides was Bobby Wolff. Sure Bobby Wolff was and is a much more expert _player_ than me, winner of zillions of World Championships. And sure Bobby Wolff was a member of the ACBL Laws Commission until the ACBL _chose not to re-elect him_ when he was ready, willing and able to serve another term. But when it comes to applying the Laws in the Lawbook then Bobby Wolff is worse than the mierenneuken (hair splitter / nitpicker) Robert Frick, as Bobby Wolf does not merely nitpick the Laws, Bobby Wolff ignores the entire Lawbook to rule instead by his instinct. Kind regards, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111129/4a095ec3/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 29 15:04:45 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:04:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same suit) In-Reply-To: References: <009501ccad9b$c99800e0$5cc802a0$@nl> Message-ID: <4495380E-CF4D-495A-ACFE-D0542892A912@starpower.net> On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:03:08 -0500, Hans van Staveren > > wrote: > >> It is clear that 64B2 handles two established revokes in the same >> suit by >> the same player. If the first was not established it must have been >> corrected so is no longer a revoke. > > The first problem is that no one thinks this way. We do not ask > questions > like, "Does the revoke still exist?" nor do we consider them sensible > questions if someone else asks them. The laws are written as if the > revoke > is still a revoke even though it is corrected. And I don't think > anyone > would think badly of the phrase "corrected revoke". Oxymoron? I don't > think so. > > The second problem is that if a player revokes in a way that costs a > trick, and the opponents have an unestablished revoke, that player is > going to read L64B7 and say, "According to this law, I should not > get a > 1-trick penalty". That player will be absolutely right. Who could > blame > them for being unhappy with that ruling? > > And directors should be able to show players the lawbook in order to > support their ruling. When we have to start hiding the lawbook and > hoping > they don't read it, there is something rotten. I really do not like > when > that happens to me, and it makes me unhappy with the lawbook. > > Of course, any club director would be an idiot not to give a split > score > in this case. And if he didn't, the idiot would deserve all the > grief he > got. > > The third problem is the way L64B2 and B7 are written. If it said that > there is no penalty for an established revoked when the opponents > made a > revoke *that still exists*, then you would have a really good > argument. > But it doesn't say that, or anything like it. > > The fourth problem is this. I asked Richard how he would make various > rulings and he answered. I pointed out that he wasn't following > Grattan's > principle, which is what you are using. He said he was. I pointed > out that > his predictions didn't follow that principle. He still didn't get > it, or > at least never corrected it. > > So, probably because no one thinks this way, it is difficult to > rule this > way. (I think the problem was when one of the revokes was a missing > card > for L64B7). > > Similarly I suspect no one will like taking away all the revoke > penalties > in my example below. (The first revoke is not penalized because it was > noted after the start of the next board; the second revoke is not > penalized, according to Hans, because there there was a previous > revoke by > the same person in the same suit which was not corrected.) > > If the mierenneuken is keeping at least 1 revoke penalty, I think > the laws > should be written that way. There are a lot of advantages to having > the > laws correspond to how we are going to rule. > > Am I missing something? I think Bob may be missing the implications of the word "any" in L64C, undoubtedly misled by the inclusion of the redundant second sentence in L64B2, which belongs in the first clause ("There is no rectification as in A above following an established revoke (but L64C may apply):... 2. if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. 3.... 7...."). In Bob's problem case, he is free to impose the obvious one-trick penalty, and need only explain to the player who says, "According to [L64B7], I should not get a 1-trick penalty" that he needs to continue reading. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Nov 29 15:23:42 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:23:42 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ED4EAEE.6030503@gmail.com> On 11/28/2011 07:41 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Players often make a call that they quickly realise is a mistake. Most > such errors are slips of the mind not the hand. The laws should not > give special dispensation to plausible liars and rationalisers, while > penalizing honest players. For example, the law should insist that the > mistaken call stands. At Reading Bridge Club, David Barnes says that > the only player he knew who could legitimately claim mechanical error > was Willy Brown who had lost feeling in his hands. Obviously, In such > (rare) cases, players should allow the ?offender? to correct his > mistake or ask the director to waive the law. > Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another example > of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. > It's entirely right and proper that players should be allowed to ask the TD to waive a penalty if they think there's some valid reason to do so that's not covered in TFLB. It's entirely wrong for TFLB to *depend* on their doing so. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 29 16:39:08 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:39:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4ED4EAEE.6030503@gmail.com> References: <4ED4EAEE.6030503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ED4FC9C.1090601@ulb.ac.be> Le 29/11/2011 15:23, Brian a ?crit : > On 11/28/2011 07:41 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> Players often make a call that they quickly realise is a mistake. Most >> such errors are slips of the mind not the hand. The laws should not >> give special dispensation to plausible liars and rationalisers, while >> penalizing honest players. For example, the law should insist that the >> mistaken call stands. At Reading Bridge Club, David Barnes says that >> the only player he knew who could legitimately claim mechanical error >> was Willy Brown who had lost feeling in his hands. Obviously, In such >> (rare) cases, players should allow the ?offender? to correct his >> mistake or ask the director to waive the law. >> Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another example >> of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. >> > It's entirely right and proper that players should be allowed to ask > the TD to waive a penalty if they think there's some valid reason to > do so that's not covered in TFLB. > > It's entirely wrong for TFLB to *depend* on their doing so. > > AG : in my personal experience, mechanical errors are quite frequent, and it is perfectly normal that some part of the laws deal with those, which are much more frequent than, say, not following suit at the 12th trick, or bidding at the 8-level, which are well-covered subjects. Some reasons apart from having impaired touch : - confusion between two types of bidding boxes, one with denominations across and levels down, the other one the other way round ; - different placement of Double, Redouble and Stop cards in differents models of bidding boxes ; - similar color for Stop and Double, and same part of the BB ; - the rather sticky nature of freshly unpacked BBs. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 29 16:53:06 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:53:06 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings In-Reply-To: <4ED4FC9C.1090601@ulb.ac.be> References: <4ED4EAEE.6030503@gmail.com> <4ED4FC9C.1090601@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <358FE2DB-9059-4D38-BD8C-166C2E98AD37@starpower.net> On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> On 11/28/2011 07:41 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >>> Players often make a call that they quickly realise is a mistake. >>> Most >>> such errors are slips of the mind not the hand. The laws should not >>> give special dispensation to plausible liars and rationalisers, >>> while >>> penalizing honest players. For example, the law should insist >>> that the >>> mistaken call stands. At Reading Bridge Club, David Barnes says that >>> the only player he knew who could legitimately claim mechanical >>> error >>> was Willy Brown who had lost feeling in his hands. Obviously, In >>> such >>> (rare) cases, players should allow the ?offender? to correct his >>> mistake or ask the director to waive the law. >>> Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another >>> example >>> of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. > > AG : in my personal experience, mechanical errors are quite frequent, > and it is perfectly normal that some part of the laws deal with those, > which are much more frequent than, say, not following suit at the 12th > trick, or bidding at the 8-level, which are well-covered subjects. > > Some reasons apart from having impaired touch : > - confusion between two types of bidding boxes, one with denominations > across and levels down, the other one the other way round ; > - different placement of Double, Redouble and Stop cards in differents > models of bidding boxes ; > - similar color for Stop and Double, and same part of the BB ; > - the rather sticky nature of freshly unpacked BBs. I'm convinced from the talk at the time that without the protection offered by L25A, many, perhaps most, ACBL clubs (the lowest level of play here) would not have been willing to even try to convert their players from verbal bidding to bidding boxes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 29 18:14:16 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:14:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same suit) In-Reply-To: <4495380E-CF4D-495A-ACFE-D0542892A912@starpower.net> References: <009501ccad9b$c99800e0$5cc802a0$@nl> <4495380E-CF4D-495A-ACFE-D0542892A912@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:04:45 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:03:08 -0500, Hans van Staveren >> >> wrote: >> >>> It is clear that 64B2 handles two established revokes in the same >>> suit by >>> the same player. If the first was not established it must have been >>> corrected so is no longer a revoke. >> >> The first problem is that no one thinks this way. We do not ask >> questions >> like, "Does the revoke still exist?" nor do we consider them sensible >> questions if someone else asks them. The laws are written as if the >> revoke >> is still a revoke even though it is corrected. And I don't think >> anyone >> would think badly of the phrase "corrected revoke". Oxymoron? I don't >> think so. >> >> The second problem is that if a player revokes in a way that costs a >> trick, and the opponents have an unestablished revoke, that player is >> going to read L64B7 and say, "According to this law, I should not >> get a >> 1-trick penalty". That player will be absolutely right. Who could >> blame >> them for being unhappy with that ruling? >> >> And directors should be able to show players the lawbook in order to >> support their ruling. When we have to start hiding the lawbook and >> hoping >> they don't read it, there is something rotten. I really do not like >> when >> that happens to me, and it makes me unhappy with the lawbook. >> >> Of course, any club director would be an idiot not to give a split >> score >> in this case. And if he didn't, the idiot would deserve all the >> grief he >> got. >> >> The third problem is the way L64B2 and B7 are written. If it said that >> there is no penalty for an established revoked when the opponents >> made a >> revoke *that still exists*, then you would have a really good >> argument. >> But it doesn't say that, or anything like it. >> >> The fourth problem is this. I asked Richard how he would make various >> rulings and he answered. I pointed out that he wasn't following >> Grattan's >> principle, which is what you are using. He said he was. I pointed >> out that >> his predictions didn't follow that principle. He still didn't get >> it, or >> at least never corrected it. >> >> So, probably because no one thinks this way, it is difficult to >> rule this >> way. (I think the problem was when one of the revokes was a missing >> card >> for L64B7). >> >> Similarly I suspect no one will like taking away all the revoke >> penalties >> in my example below. (The first revoke is not penalized because it was >> noted after the start of the next board; the second revoke is not >> penalized, according to Hans, because there there was a previous >> revoke by >> the same person in the same suit which was not corrected.) >> >> If the mierenneuken is keeping at least 1 revoke penalty, I think >> the laws >> should be written that way. There are a lot of advantages to having >> the >> laws correspond to how we are going to rule. >> >> Am I missing something? > > I think Bob may be missing the implications of the word "any" in > L64C, undoubtedly misled by the inclusion of the redundant second > sentence in L64B2, which belongs in the first clause ("There is no > rectification as in A above following an established revoke (but L64C > may apply):... 2. if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by > the same player. 3.... 7...."). Suppose just for the sake of example, that declarer was in 2 Spades and always going to make 9 tricks and the revokes didn't affect anything. The situation before the first revoke is +140. The situation after the first revoke is still +140 no rectification as in A because the revoke was discovered too late). So it is, if nothing else, not obvious that there needs to be an adjustment for equity. If you say there will be a second revoke and then consider the effect of the first revoke on play, which is what I think you are doing, then you can get equity. If they hadn't revoked, then declarer would have gotten +170. Because of the first revoke, declarer got only +140 (there is no rectification for the second revoke in Hans formulation because there was an uncorrected/established first revoke by the same player in the same suit). But I think you are doing time-travel here. That usually boggles me. You are going forward in time to the second revoke, then backwards in time to the first revoke to reconsider equity. And don't we get paradoxes? What if the player had only one diamond. If they hadn't revoked the first time, it would have been impossible to revoke the second time (because he is out of diamonds). L12 asks us to consider what would have happened without the infraction, and that surely can't include a second revoke. So you would be assuming the existence of something that could not possible occur with your assumption. Are we talking about the current laws or the next version? For the next version, wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to just require the first revoke to have received an L64A rectification in order for L64B2 to apply? > > In Bob's problem case, he is free to impose the obvious one-trick > penalty, and need only explain to the player who says, "According to > [L64B7], I should not get a 1-trick penalty" that he needs to > continue reading. Not obvious. And a player with a self-centered motivation to not find Eric's interpretation will neither find it or accept it. There is a big advantage here to being simple and straightforward. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Nov 29 18:21:57 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:21:57 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings In-Reply-To: <358FE2DB-9059-4D38-BD8C-166C2E98AD37@starpower.net> References: <4ED4EAEE.6030503@gmail.com> <4ED4FC9C.1090601@ulb.ac.be> <358FE2DB-9059-4D38-BD8C-166C2E98AD37@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:53:06 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Nov 29, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> On 11/28/2011 07:41 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>> >>>> Players often make a call that they quickly realise is a mistake. >>>> Most >>>> such errors are slips of the mind not the hand. The laws should not >>>> give special dispensation to plausible liars and rationalisers, >>>> while >>>> penalizing honest players. For example, the law should insist >>>> that the >>>> mistaken call stands. At Reading Bridge Club, David Barnes says that >>>> the only player he knew who could legitimately claim mechanical >>>> error >>>> was Willy Brown who had lost feeling in his hands. Obviously, In >>>> such >>>> (rare) cases, players should allow the ?offender? to correct his >>>> mistake or ask the director to waive the law. >>>> Mechanical error laws are a needless complication. Yet another >>>> example >>>> of laws that add no value and should be expunged from the law-book. >> >> AG : in my personal experience, mechanical errors are quite frequent, >> and it is perfectly normal that some part of the laws deal with those, >> which are much more frequent than, say, not following suit at the 12th >> trick, or bidding at the 8-level, which are well-covered subjects. >> >> Some reasons apart from having impaired touch : >> - confusion between two types of bidding boxes, one with denominations >> across and levels down, the other one the other way round ; >> - different placement of Double, Redouble and Stop cards in differents >> models of bidding boxes ; >> - similar color for Stop and Double, and same part of the BB ; >> - the rather sticky nature of freshly unpacked BBs. > > I'm convinced from the talk at the time that without the protection > offered by L25A, many, perhaps most, ACBL clubs (the lowest level of > play here) would not have been willing to even try to convert their > players from verbal bidding to bidding boxes. And it's not as bad as Nigel says. The ACBL asks for pretty good evidence before making a ruling of mechanical error. So if there is any good reason to suspect the error was not mechanical, I can disallow the change. Someone claimed mispull last night. She bid 2NT, but said she meant to pull 2S out of the box. She was overcalling 2D, she had AKQxxx of spades, and it was a beginner game so she wasn't doing some advanced clever play. I would have felt very comfortable ruling that a mispull. And it makes it a better game. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Nov 29 22:17:20 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:17:20 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 64 B2 (two revokes by the same player in the same suit) In-Reply-To: References: <009501ccad9b$c99800e0$5cc802a0$@nl> <4495380E-CF4D-495A-ACFE-D0542892A912@starpower.net> Message-ID: <610BEE25-1705-4C8E-8DED-668E6EEE02EE@starpower.net> On Nov 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:04:45 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> I think Bob may be missing the implications of the word "any" in >> L64C, undoubtedly misled by the inclusion of the redundant second >> sentence in L64B2, which belongs in the first clause ("There is no >> rectification as in A above following an established revoke (but L64C >> may apply):... 2. if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by >> the same player. 3.... 7...."). > > Suppose just for the sake of example, that declarer was in 2 Spades > and > always going to make 9 tricks and the revokes didn't affect > anything. The > situation before the first revoke is +140. The situation after the > first > revoke is still +140 no rectification as in A because the revoke was > discovered too late). So it is, if nothing else, not obvious that > there > needs to be an adjustment for equity. > > If you say there will be a second revoke and then consider the > effect of > the first revoke on play, which is what I think you are doing, then > you > can get equity. If they hadn't revoked, then declarer would have > gotten > +170. Because of the first revoke, declarer got only +140 (there is no > rectification for the second revoke in Hans formulation because > there was > an uncorrected/established first revoke by the same player in the same > suit). > > But I think you are doing time-travel here. That usually boggles > me. You > are going forward in time to the second revoke, then backwards in > time to > the first revoke to reconsider equity. > > And don't we get paradoxes? What if the player had only one > diamond. If > they hadn't revoked the first time, it would have been impossible to > revoke the second time (because he is out of diamonds). L12 asks us to > consider what would have happened without the infraction, and that > surely > can't include a second revoke. So you would be assuming the > existence of > something that could not possible occur with your assumption. I don't think there's any such thing as "equity" for a revoke -- or any other -- trick. Equity can only be determined relative to the entire deal. You can't use L64C other than by considering the entire deal as a whole after play ends. > Are we talking about the current laws or the next version? The current laws, as I understand (and would in practice apply) them. > For the next > version, wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler to just require the first > revoke to have received an L64A rectification in order for L64B2 to > apply? Probably so. It shouldn't affect the outcome of any actual rulings, but could reduce the number of cases in which the TD needs L64C to get there. >> In Bob's problem case, he is free to impose the obvious one-trick >> penalty, and need only explain to the player who says, "According to >> [L64B7], I should not get a 1-trick penalty" that he needs to >> continue reading. > > Not obvious. And a player with a self-centered motivation to not find > Eric's interpretation will neither find it or accept it. There is a > big > advantage here to being simple and straightforward. I agree. I argue only that my interpretation of L64 is correct, not at all that it's obvious. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Nov 30 05:09:39 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:09:39 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > If it was not there players would have the dreaded and much discussed double > shot. Maybe "much discussed," but little defined. I have seen examples, but I don't recall a clear, objective definition of double shot. I am hoping for a definition that does not depend on mind reading. Is anyone up to this? Why do you say "dreaded"? I am tempted to agree with Nigel's thoughts on double shots, but I would appreciate some guidance as to why an action that might be labeled a double shot is such a terrifying thing. One consideration in my mind is that one can never tell ahead of time how a ruling is destined to go, so there is no such thing as a pure double shot. For a pure double shot, you would have to be certain how the director will rule on the facts preceding your action, and who is ever sure about such things at the time? Not me. This consideration alone is almost enough to convince me that what we call double shots should be legal. Also, I am curious as to what is the worst that can happen if we started to allow "double shots"? What is the most dreaded, unbridgeworthy outcome you can imagine? Finally, candidly, I have not seen a lot of good analysis from directors about double shots in my life. For example, one man's double shot is another man's attempt to salvage some matchpoints in a situation where the alternative is a likely zero. It may be beyond human ability to generate consistent and repeatable rulings as to what is and is not a double shot. Maybe a "second-best rule" that is predictable, repeatable, easier to enforce, and gives equal treatment to all players is better than a "first-best" rule that tends to give rulings that look random at best. Jerry Fusselman From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 30 05:40:17 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:40:17 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> Message-ID: <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> "Jerry Fusselman" writes: > One consideration in my mind is that one can never tell ahead of time > how a ruling is destined to go, so there is no such thing as a pure > double shot. For a pure double shot, you would have to be certain > how the director will rule on the facts preceding your action, and who > is ever sure about such things at the time? Not me. This > consideration alone is almost enough to convince me that what we call > double shots should be legal. But you do not need to rule that an action is a double shot in order to deny adjustment; you need only rule that the damage is self-inflicted. My standard example: Both vulnerable, IMPs S W N E 1S P 2S ..P P X 3S X AP 3S went down three for -800. North held a 3=3=3=4 6-count. The TD ruled that pass was a LA to West's double, and adjusted the E-W score to +200 in 2S undoubled, which would have been the result without the infraction. But he ruled that the 3S call denied N-S the right to any redress; N-S were not damaged by West's double (which would have given them -130 had North passed and East bid 3D, better than the -200 they would have had without the double). Rather, N-S were damaged by North's abnormal 3S bid. Whether North bid it as a deliberate double shot, because he made an error such as having the CQ in with his spades, or just because he didn't know how to bid in a competitive auction, he does not get an adjustment. Thus the score was +200 to E-W and -800 to N-S. (In fact, I don't think that North took a deliberate double shot here, as it is dangerous; if West has x Kxxx QJxx KJxx or similar, then West's double was automatic and North will have to live with the results of 3S.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 30 06:01:45 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:01:45 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman -> Maybe "much discussed," but little defined. I have seen examples, but I don't recall a clear, objective definition of double shot. I am hoping for a definition that does not depend on mind reading. Is anyone up to this? EBU White Book, clause 12.1.3, part (a) -> Split scores Law 12C1F refers to the fact that scores need not balance. There are certain occasions when a TD should give the two sides different adjusted scores. (a) Suppose a player knows his opponents have done something wrong. They reach a final contract, and he judges that he will get an adjustment anyway. So he decides to try a gambling double: if he gets a good score, that is fine: if not, then he will presumably get an adjustment anyway. This is known as the "[dreaded] double shot", permitted in many sports, but not acceptable in bridge. Jerry Fusselman -> Why do you say "dreaded"? I am tempted to agree with Nigel's thoughts on double shots, but I would appreciate some guidance as to why an action that might be labeled a double shot is such a terrifying thing. [snip] Richard Hills -> Perhaps "a terrifying thing" because the philosophy of many Laws in the Lawbook (for example Law 13A - Incorrect Number of Cards - Director Deems Normal Play) is to strive for a normal result, and a double-shot by definition strives for an abnormal result. EBU White Book, clause 12.1.3, part (a), continued -> The player's final score is considered to be caused by the "wild or gambling action" subsequent to the opponents' infraction so is not fully adjusted. However, the score for the offending side is adjusted in the normal way. See #12.8/9 for the non-offending side's score. Example A Ghestem jump overcall of 3?C over 1C is described as hearts and diamonds. Overcaller looks surprised at his partner's explanation and bids 3S over his partner's 3H and then 4S over 4H. No doubt this will be ruled back since he appears to have used unauthorised information. But an opponent makes a ridiculous double of 4S, which makes. The offenders get adjusted back to some contract in hearts. If the doubler's action is considered "wild or gambling" then the non-offenders' redress is reduced by the amount the double cost, ie the difference between 4S made and 4S doubled and made. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111130/bd02dd39/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Nov 30 07:13:09 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:13:09 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: David Grabiner writes: > Jerry Fusselman writes: > >> One consideration in my mind is that one can never tell ahead of time >> how a ruling is destined to go, so there is no such thing as a pure >> double shot. ? For a pure double shot, you would have to be certain >> how the director will rule on the facts preceding your action, and who >> is ever sure about such things at the time? ?Not me. ?This >> consideration alone is almost enough to convince me that what we call >> double shots should be legal. > > But you do not need to rule that an action is a double shot in order to deny > adjustment; you need only rule that the damage is self-inflicted. ?My standard > example: > > Both vulnerable, IMPs > S ? W ? ?N ? E > 1S ?P ? 2S ?..P > P ? X ? 3S ?X > AP > > 3S went down three for -800. ?North held a 3=3=3=4 6-count. > > The TD ruled that pass was a LA to West's double, and adjusted the E-W score to > +200 in 2S undoubled, which would have been the result without the infraction. > > But he ruled that the 3S call denied N-S the right to any redress; N-S were not > damaged by West's double (which would have given them -130 had North passed and > East bid 3D, better than the -200 they would have had without the double). > Rather, N-S were damaged by North's abnormal 3S bid. ?Whether North bid it as a > deliberate double shot, because he made an error such as having the CQ in with > his spades, or just because he didn't know how to bid in a competitive auction, > he does not get an adjustment. ?Thus the score was +200 to E-W and -800 to N-S. > (In fact, I don't think that North took a deliberate double shot here, as it is > dangerous; if West has x Kxxx QJxx KJxx or similar, then West's double was > automatic and North will have to live with the results of 3S.) > Thanks for the example. A few questions: Is there any difference between a double shot and your term, "deliberate double shot"? I was trying to limit my discussion to double shots, but you admit that this example is not exactly a double shot. A lot of people talk about double shots, but I just want to know what they mean---and if any definition is possible. I have a feeling that you would label 3S as a serious error (rather than a double shot)---am I right? In this example, are you saying that pass instead of double by West was an LA, and that West's double was an infraction---and that the infraction should have led to +140, a lower score? If West had chosen to pass rather than double, would double have been an LA for him? And would you have lowered E-W's score to +140? About the abnormal 3S bid, I wonder what percent of the time it works out well in practice, perhaps by pushing them into the wrong strain, or too high, or to miss game. These are possible good results from 3S. We cannot be overly influenced by -800 and our own bidding styles in judging whether or not 3S is a serious error. Suppose it works out well 25% of the time in games among their peers---would you still feel justified in calling it a serious error? Jerry Fusselman From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Nov 30 09:46:56 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:46:56 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: <01b601ccaf3c$9de5bf80$d9b13e80$@nl> [Jerry] Thanks for the example. A few questions: Is there any difference between a double shot and your term, "deliberate double shot"? I was trying to limit my discussion to double shots, but you admit that this example is not exactly a double shot. A lot of people talk about double shots, but I just want to know what they mean---and if any definition is possible. I have a feeling that you would label 3S as a serious error (rather than a double shot)---am I right? In this example, are you saying that pass instead of double by West was an LA, and that West's double was an infraction---and that the infraction should have led to +140, a lower score? If West had chosen to pass rather than double, would double have been an LA for him? And would you have lowered E-W's score to +140? About the abnormal 3S bid, I wonder what percent of the time it works out well in practice, perhaps by pushing them into the wrong strain, or too high, or to miss game. These are possible good results from 3S. We cannot be overly influenced by -800 and our own bidding styles in judging whether or not 3S is a serious error. Suppose it works out well 25% of the time in games among their peers---would you still feel justified in calling it a serious error? [Hans] The law does not use the word double-shot. Law 12C1b handles two cases: 1) Serious error 2) Wild or gambling action Note that it says serious error, not just error. And what is a serious error? It depends. For a novice to play a hand on the assumption there are only 12 spades in the deck is normal, so would not count as a serious error. In the BB final it would be an extremely serious error. A revoke is used by me mostly to discuss this law, since a revoke is a serious error at all levels. The second part, wild or gambling action is for the double-shot case. Your opponents in a team game balance after hesitation and reach 3C. You have no intention to bid your suit again, and have no clue whether 3C will make. You are pretty sure the TD will not allow the balance. Now doubling 3C could be seen as a gambling action. In an example in this thread I discussed a case where you are in 3NT, with 10 certain tricks, and a shot for 11. You see that 4S is normal and would score 11 tricks. Now any attempt from you to try to score 11 tricks, no matter how crazy, even if it results in you going down, cannot be seen as gambling action. You were doing your best to beat the field, as you should. The couple of percent you can lose in doing so are neither here nor there. And in direct response to you I would say any action taken by 25% of the field, or even 10% for that matter, can never be labeled a serious error. From sater at xs4all.nl Wed Nov 30 09:51:41 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:51:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> Message-ID: <01b701ccaf3d$49740d70$dc5c2850$@nl> For a good discussion about serious errors, and how they are ruled much too frequently see the piece from Ton Kooijman at the latest EBL course. http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/2010Course/Serious%20Error.p df Hans From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Nov 30 10:25:51 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:25:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <01b601ccaf3c$9de5bf80$d9b13e80$@nl> Message-ID: If one pair in a 5t Howell took (seemingly) crazy action, it may be reasonable to judge that nobody else would act that way. One might then consider it a w or g, and/or a serious error. However, if 10 pairs from a 50t event took the same "crazy" action, that is a whole new kettle of ball games.. L > And in direct response to you I would say any action taken by 25% of the > field, or even 10% for that matter, can never be labeled a serious error. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Nov 30 11:01:29 2011 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:01:29 +0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 25A descantings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ED5FEF9.4080901@btinternet.com> On 29/11/2011 00:41, Nigel Guthrie wrote:At Reading Bridge Club, David Barnes says that the only player he knew who could legitimately claim mechanical error was Willy Brown who had lost feeling in his hands. Ah well, if David Barnes says it, the rest of us who have done such a thing had better realise we were mistaken. Gordon Rainsford From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Nov 30 14:36:39 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:36:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <01b701ccaf3d$49740d70$dc5c2850$@nl> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <01b701ccaf3d$49740d70$dc5c2850$@nl> Message-ID: <4ED63167.4030202@aol.com> WQhen I try to access the page/site given below I get a message saying that it cannot be found/has been removed/whatever. Any suggestions? JE Am 30.11.2011 09:51, schrieb Hans van Staveren: > For a good discussion about serious errors, and how they are ruled much too > frequently see the piece from Ton Kooijman at the latest EBL course. > > http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/2010Course/Serious%20Error.p > df > > Hans > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 30 14:38:45 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:38:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Perhaps "a terrifying thing" because the philosophy of many Laws in > the Lawbook (for example Law 13A - Incorrect Number of Cards - > Director Deems Normal Play) is to strive for a normal result, and a > double-shot by definition strives for an abnormal result. > To say that "a double shot by definition strives for an abnormal result" is looking at it backwards. A double shot, by definition, can only occur when the ability to achieve a "normal" result has already been precluded by an opponent's infraction. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Nov 30 14:50:04 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:50:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> > Eric Landau > On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Perhaps "a terrifying thing" because the philosophy of many Laws in > > the Lawbook (for example Law 13A - Incorrect Number of Cards - > > Director Deems Normal Play) is to strive for a normal result, and a > > double-shot by definition strives for an abnormal result. > > > To say that "a double shot by definition strives for an abnormal result" is > looking at it backwards. A double shot, by definition, can only occur when > the ability to achieve a "normal" result has already been precluded by an > opponent's infraction. [Sven Pran] Oh no. A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have said to himself: Opponents have committed an infraction. I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall request a rectification for the infraction. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Nov 30 15:26:27 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:26:27 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills quotes this Example] A Ghestem jump overcall of 3?C over 1C is described as hearts and diamonds. Overcaller looks surprised at his partner's explanation and bids 3S over his partner's 3H and then 4S over 4H. No doubt this will be ruled back since he appears to have used unauthorised information. But an opponent makes a ridiculous double of 4S, which makes. The offenders get adjusted back to some contract in hearts. If the doubler's action is considered "wild or gambling" then the non-offenders' redress is reduced by the amount the double cost, ie the difference between 4S made and 4S doubled and made. {Nigel] Unfortunately, this just underlines Jerry's and my point. In theory, the current law is daft and unfair. But, in practice, it is even worse because, in most cases, directors don't understand it and misapply it. For a real-life example of the law *in practice*, please Richard could you look up an extreme case, discussed on BLML, where the NOS misdefend a non-vul low-level doubled partscore, when they realise that MI by the OS has prevented them from bidding and making a vulnerable grand. Their misdefence hardly impinges on the likely board-result but the BLML consensus was to deny them any part of the grand! IMO, similar mistaken rulings often occur in published appeal cases, where the committee judge an action to be "a serious error" or "wild and gambling". Anyway, it is a weak defence of a law, to say that it might create less injustice, if only you could ever find any director who could understand it. IMO, the rules for a game can be simple, provided that they can be consistently applied and result in a game that players understand and enjoy. Scrapping or simplifying some rules might make Bridge less interesting for directors but players would understand the game better and appreciate more consistent rulings. Otherwise, they would hardly notice. It wouldn't alter the fundamental nature of the game. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Nov 30 16:09:38 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:09:38 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4ED63167.4030202@aol.com> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <01b701ccaf3d$49740d70$dc5c2850$@nl> <4ED63167.4030202@aol.com> Message-ID: <4ED64732.2090902@iinet.net.au> I copied it into google and found it. Otherwise go to the European Bridge league website/Departments/Directing/Courses/2010 lecture notes bheers bill On 30/11/2011 9:36 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > WQhen I try to access the page/site given below I get a message saying > that it cannot be found/has been removed/whatever. Any suggestions? JE > > Am 30.11.2011 09:51, schrieb Hans van Staveren: >> For a good discussion about serious errors, and how they are ruled much too >> frequently see the piece from Ton Kooijman at the latest EBL course. >> >> http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/2010Course/Serious%20Error.p >> df >> >> Hans >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Nov 30 17:13:21 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:13:21 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <4ED63167.4030202@aol.com> References: <3ABF0A3213E544F7980C80B502E0840F@MARVLAPTOP> <021901ccab62$183bd1e0$48b375a0$@nl> <12293210-08CB-4223-A6FB-69919FBC9839@gmail.com> <023101ccab87$60847590$218d60b0$@nl> <33F3A2BD3C034A46AF211B787DE03DBD@MARVLAPTOP> <00d501ccade9$50525520$f0f6ff60$@nl> <00f401ccae23$30ce8130$926b8390$@nl> <2FF3670EE297464CA97B0C0F7BB2BEA8@erdos> <01b701ccaf3d$49740d70$dc5c2850$@nl> <4ED63167.4030202@aol.com> Message-ID: <4ED65621.6030102@gmail.com> On 11/30/2011 08:36 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > WQhen I try to access the page/site given below I get a message saying > that it cannot be found/has been removed/whatever. Any suggestions? JE > > Am 30.11.2011 09:51, schrieb Hans van Staveren: >> For a good discussion about serious errors, and how they are ruled much too >> frequently see the piece from Ton Kooijman at the latest EBL course. >> >> http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/2010Course/Serious%20Error.p >> df >> >> Hans >> Hans's URL was broken as received here. Did you remember to add the 'df' back to the end, rather than just clicking on the link? When I did that, it worked just fine for me. Brian. From ken.johnston at btinternet.com Wed Nov 30 18:09:23 2011 From: ken.johnston at btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:09:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite Message-ID: <1322672963.62876.androidMobile@web86002.mail.ird.yahoo.com> There are two letters missing at the end of the URL. Should read pdf not p. Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111130/daba4b62/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Nov 30 22:24:11 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:24:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Nov 30, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > [Sven Pran] Oh no. > > A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have > said to > himself: > Opponents have committed an infraction. > I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall > request a > rectification for the infraction. In real life, to "request a rectification for the infraction" may well indeed be a "wild or gambling action". It gives you a "double shot", all right: a shot at getting rectification, and a shot at not getting it. If my opponents can't tell the difference between "request" and "get", they're welcome to try their luck at my table. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 30 22:36:11 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:36:11 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <01b701ccaf3d$49740d70$dc5c2850$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren -> For a good discussion about serious errors, and how they are ruled much too frequently see the piece from Ton Kooijman at the latest EBL course. http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/2010Course/Serious%20Error.pdf Ton Kooijman, Introduction -> [snip] Generally speaking, TDs and ACs are reluctant to compensate a bad score after an irregularity, not sufficiently protecting the innocent side. It seems necessary to draw some guidelines. [snip] Ton Kooijman, Conclusion -> TDs and Appeals Committees tend to have a strict judgment on actions by the non-offending side. They do not succeed in imagining the problem the innocent side is confronted with. The laws allow the non-offending side to make errors ? even big ones - without affecting the adjusted score to be awarded. One possibility is to accept that a serious error has been committed if it is not considered to be an option even by a few players of comparable strength. An erroneous consideration that a serious error has been committed would create damage which is not compensated by an adjusted score (subsequent damage: the difference between the expected result after the infraction and the actual result). We might adopt another principle, especially for the non-offending side in defence: if it is possible to compose a realistic opponent's or partner's hand, using the information available at that moment, with which actual play could be justified, the case should not be considered to constitute a serious error. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111130/2597983c/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Nov 30 22:49:35 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:49:35 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> Message-ID: [Sven Pran] A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have said to himself: Opponents have committed an infraction. I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall request a rectification for the infraction. [Eric Landau] In real life, to "request a rectification for the infraction" may well indeed be a "wild or gambling action". ?It gives you a "double shot", all right: a shot at getting rectification, and a shot at not getting it. ?If my opponents can't tell the difference between "request" and "get", they're welcome to try their luck at my table. [Jerry Fusselman] I consider the point Eric makes here to be similar to my statement that there is no such thing as a pure double shot---any such attempt would be intrinsically risky. Questions for Eric in case he will indulge me: Are your standards for ruling Serious Error relatively close to Ton's---i.e., much less frequent than we see in the ACBL? Do you recall cases that you find fall short of Serious Error, but are "wild or gambling", and of these, are several of them "double shots"? Is this area of TFLB another one of those cases where "knowing your customers" comes in handy---where directors should try to maintain a mental list of those players capable of perpetrating a double shot, and those who are not? Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Nov 30 23:25:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:25:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] Anyway, it is a weak defence of a law, to say that it might create less injustice, if only you could ever find any director who could understand it. Ton Kooijman -> [snip] Generally speaking, TDs and ACs are reluctant to compensate a bad score after an irregularity, not sufficiently protecting the innocent side. Nigel Guthrie -> IMO, the rules for a game can be simple, provided that they can be consistently applied and result in a game that players understand and enjoy. Scrapping or simplifying some rules [snip] wouldn't alter the fundamental nature of the game. Ton Kooijman -> It seems necessary to draw some guidelines. [snip] Richard Hills -> Yes, again Nigel Guthrie erroneously assumes that the _only_ solution to Directors' failures to understand a rule is to abolish that rule, when a logical alternative is instead "to draw some guidelines" which clarify to Directors the application of that rule. Plus in my opinion Nigel Guthrie begs the question, petitio principii, that a Nigella scrapping of "some rules" would not "alter the fundamental nature of the game". In my opinion almost without exception(1) Nigel's proposals over the past decade would have had unintended consequences which would indeed have altered the fundamental nature of the game had they been adopted. Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) The one suggestion by Nigel Guthrie which in my opinion has merit is to amend the 2007 Law 66D to this hypothetical 2018 Law 66D -> After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected by request of a player (not a spectator) to settle an uneasiness in that player's mind about the possibility of an irregularity, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle another player's cards. If, after such a request has been made, a player mixes cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side. Yes, I know that in Nigel Guthrie's ideal nation "request of a player (not a spectator)" would be replaced by "request of a player and/or a spectator". Norman Douglas, South Wind (1917) -> You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111130/4a9ed91d/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Nov 30 23:40:02 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:40:02 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Law 12C1(b) rewrite In-Reply-To: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> References: <004e01ccaf66$f779a050$e66ce0f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <4ED6B0C2.2080600@comcast.net> On 11/30/11 8:50 AM, Sven Pran wrote: >> Eric Landau >> On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Perhaps "a terrifying thing" because the philosophy of many Laws in >>> the Lawbook (for example Law 13A - Incorrect Number of Cards - >>> Director Deems Normal Play) is to strive for a normal result, and a >>> double-shot by definition strives for an abnormal result. >>> >> To say that "a double shot by definition strives for an abnormal result" > is >> looking at it backwards. A double shot, by definition, can only occur > when >> the ability to achieve a "normal" result has already been precluded by an >> opponent's infraction. > [Sven Pran] Oh no. > > A "double shot" occurs (in this connection) when a player may have said to > himself: > Opponents have committed an infraction. > I'll try a gamble and if it works then fine, otherwise I shall request a > rectification for the infraction. > > _ Egad! Are you realy proposing to punish a player for what he "may have said to himself?" What are you...the thought police? I personally think a player should be able to talk to himself all he wants, so long as it does not intrude on others.