From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 4 23:52:48 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:52:48 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps (Butler Pairs scored against an Olympic datum) Dlr: South Vul: North-South North (Unlucky Expert) A842 9654 AQT9 8 South (Dummy) KQ7 AQT7 KJ83 A4 The uncontested auction proceeded -> SOUTH......NORTH 1D.........1H 4H.........4NT 5S (1).....6H (2) Pass (1) Two keycards in hearts plus the queen of hearts (2) If North had been a Lucky Expert then North would have tried bidding a choice-of-slams 6D The defenders use old-fashioned leads and signals. Trick 1...C5...CA...CJ...C8 Trick 2...C4...CK...H4...C2 Now plan the rest of the play, either: (a) the expert play, or (b) the lucky play, or (c) the luckily expert play. Remember that the subtitle of the classic Card Play Technique, by Mollo & Gardener, is "the Art of Being Lucky". Kind regards, Richard "UE" 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/20111004/e0c4a7c2/attachment.html From tom.cheng.tong at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 23:59:21 2011 From: tom.cheng.tong at gmail.com (Tom Cheng) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:59:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <795AB7ED-596A-4845-A3DF-D436E5D92265@gmail.com> What's the bridge laws angle of this contribution please? Tom Cheng ------------------------------------ On Oct 4, 2011, at 17:52, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps (Butler Pairs scored against an Olympic datum) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > North (Unlucky Expert) > A842 > 9654 > AQT9 > 8 > > South (Dummy) > KQ7 > AQT7 > KJ83 > A4 > > The uncontested auction proceeded -> > > SOUTH......NORTH > 1D.........1H > 4H.........4NT > 5S (1).....6H (2) > Pass > > (1) Two keycards in hearts plus the queen of hearts > (2) If North had been a Lucky Expert then North would have tried bidding a choice-of-slams 6D > > The defenders use old-fashioned leads and signals. > > Trick 1...C5...CA...CJ...C8 > Trick 2...C4...CK...H4...C2 > > Now plan the rest of the play, either: > > (a) the expert play, or > (b) the lucky play, or > (c) the luckily expert play. > > Remember that the subtitle of the classic Card Play Technique, by Mollo & Gardener, is "the Art of Being Lucky". > > Kind regards, > > Richard "UE" Hills > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111004/b6679df2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 5 00:29:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:29:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tom Cheng What's the bridge laws angle of this contribution please? Richard Hills Welcome to blml, Tom. Do you have any cats? My cat Lionel bosses me about. The bridge laws angle of Lionel is that both he and the Lawbook are inscrutable. But seriously, I have the annoying habit of posing a problem in my first posting on a thread, but deferring revelation of its Lawbook angle until my second or third posting. This is the way that I follow the double-blind technique of the scientific method, by preventing blmlers' opinions from being distorted with 20/20 hindsight. Matthew Arnold (1822 - 1888) Cruel, but composed and bland, Dumb, inscrutable and grand, So Tiberius might have sat, Had Tiberius been a cat. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111004/f45ce153/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 5 01:19:32 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:19:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again. In the thread "mistaken UI" Alain Gottcheiner asserted [snip] I don't like laws that are fundamentally impossible to enforce. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles What's the problem? In my opinion the problem is that Alain has way too much experience as a blmler, so Alain well remembers the repealed 1997 Lawbook which did indeed contain a multitude of Laws that were fundamentally impossible to enforce. But for the new 2007 Lawbook each and every Law is easy to enforce (if not necessarily easy to understand), thanks to the new 2007 Law 85A. LAW 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: A. Director?s Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. Richard Hills The 1997 Law 72A2, "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose," was a classic example of a fundamentally unenforceable Law in the 1997 Lawbook, due to the adverb "knowingly". But the corresponding renumbered 2007 Law 79A2 is easy to enforce, since the Director no longer has to _prove_ "knowingly", but merely has to assess the balance of probabilities means that "knowingly" is more likely to be true than false. So blmlers and Directors must forget whatever they once knew about the 1997 Lawbook in order to rule validly under the 2007 Lawbook. Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd; -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111004/6d9135de/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 5 03:31:31 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:31:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:19:32 -0400, wrote: > > Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) > > A little learning is a dangerous thing; > Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: > There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, > And drinking largely sobers us again. > > In the thread "mistaken UI" Alain Gottcheiner asserted > > [snip] > I don't like laws that are fundamentally impossible to enforce. > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles > > What's the problem? > > In my opinion the problem is that Alain has way too much experience as a > blmler, so Alain well remembers the repealed 1997 Lawbook which did > indeed > contain a multitude of Laws that were fundamentally impossible to > enforce. > > But for the new 2007 Lawbook each and every Law is easy to enforce (if > not > necessarily easy to understand), thanks to the new 2007 Law 85A. > > LAW 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation > in > which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: > > A. Director?s Assessment > > 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the > balance > of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the > evidence he is able to collect. > > 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, > he > rules as in Law 84. That's a really big if. It comes up a lot -- what do I do when I am not satisfied I have ascertained the facts? I know, there are answers and everyone comes to some method. Or just guesses. I liked what I think Ton was saying -- we do our best to figure out what happened, and we aren't always right. BUt we have to go with whatever we think is most likely. Perhaps "facts" is the wrong word. > > Richard Hills > > The 1997 Law 72A2, "A player must not knowingly accept either the score > for > a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his > opponents could not lose," was a classic example of a fundamentally > unenforceable Law in the 1997 Lawbook, due to the adverb "knowingly". > > But the corresponding renumbered 2007 Law 79A2 is easy to enforce, since > the Director no longer has to _prove_ "knowingly", but merely has to > assess > the balance of probabilities means that "knowingly" is more likely to be > true than false. > > So blmlers and Directors must forget whatever they once knew about the > 1997 > Lawbook in order to rule validly under the 2007 Lawbook. > > Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) > > How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! > The world forgetting, by the world forgot. > Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! > Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd; > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 5 04:40:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 13:40:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 85A - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. 2. ***If*** the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84. Robert Frick That's a really big if. It comes up a lot -- what do I do when I am not satisfied I have ascertained the facts? Law 85B - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Facts Not Determined ***If*** the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue. Robert Frick [snip] I liked what I think Ton was saying -- we do our best to figure out what happened, and we aren't always right. But we have to go with whatever we think is most likely. Perhaps "facts" is the wrong word. Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington, page 19 Consider three baseball umpires discussing their calling: Umpire 1: I call 'em the way I sees 'em! Umpire 2: I call 'em the way they are! Umpire 3: They ain't nothin' until I calls 'em! Umpire 3 is a man who understands that it is within his authority to define reality any way he sees fit. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111005/cb5448ed/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 5 14:52:06 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:52:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8C52F6.50009@ulb.ac.be> Le 5/10/2011 3:31, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:19:32 -0400, wrote: > >> Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) >> >> A little learning is a dangerous thing; >> Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: >> There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, >> And drinking largely sobers us again. >> >> In the thread "mistaken UI" Alain Gottcheiner asserted >> >> [snip] >> I don't like laws that are fundamentally impossible to enforce. >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills quibbles >> >> What's the problem? >> >> In my opinion the problem is that Alain has way too much experience as a >> blmler, so Alain well remembers the repealed 1997 Lawbook which did >> indeed >> contain a multitude of Laws that were fundamentally impossible to >> enforce. >> >> But for the new 2007 Lawbook each and every Law is easy to enforce (if >> not >> necessarily easy to understand), thanks to the new 2007 Law 85A. >> >> LAW 85 - Rulings on Disputed Facts >> >> When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation >> in >> which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: >> >> A. Director?s Assessment >> >> 1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the >> balance >> of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the >> evidence he is able to collect. >> >> 2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, >> he >> rules as in Law 84. > > That's a really big if. It comes up a lot -- what do I do when I am not > satisfied I have ascertained the facts? I know, there are answers and > everyone comes to some method. Or just guesses. AG : also, what if we aren't alerted that there is something to be ascertained ?? One may not voluntary hide one's revoke e.g. by revoking a second time. How do you ascertain that any continued revoke was voluntary ? > > I liked what I think Ton was saying -- we do our best to figure out what > happened, and we aren't always right. BUt we have to go with whatever we > think is most likely. > > Perhaps "facts" is the wrong word. > > >> Richard Hills >> >> The 1997 Law 72A2, "A player must not knowingly accept either the score >> for >> a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his >> opponents could not lose," was a classic example of a fundamentally >> unenforceable Law in the 1997 Lawbook, due to the adverb "knowingly". >> >> But the corresponding renumbered 2007 Law 79A2 is easy to enforce, since >> the Director no longer has to _prove_ "knowingly", but merely has to >> assess >> the balance of probabilities means that "knowingly" is more likely to be >> true than false. >> >> So blmlers and Directors must forget whatever they once knew about the >> 1997 >> Lawbook in order to rule validly under the 2007 Lawbook. >> >> Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) >> >> How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! >> The world forgetting, by the world forgot. >> Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! >> Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd; >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >> advise >> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >> email, >> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally >> privileged >> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >> privacy >> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. >> See: >> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 5 15:10:44 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:10:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Old case, new settings Message-ID: <4E8C5754.8070306@ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Once again the problem of explaining one's (or pertner's) conventions arose, but I suspect that the answers will be different here, as there were screens. Your hold, both vul at teams : QTx JTxx T9x QJx N E S(you) W 1NT 2Da p 2H X p ? 2D = length in either major (whence 2H = P/C) You have the following meta-agreements : - all low-level doubles in front of the long suit are for take-out (also applies in would-be suits, as here) ; - don't leaei take-out doubles in ; - all undiscussed bids are natural and non forcing ; Whence you bid a natural, nonforcing 2NT. The board come back with 3C. You didn't see partner alert, there was no timing that makes you suspect partner needed to explain the bidding, but you strongly suspect that partner took your bid as lebensohl (which you play only in a few specific circumstances). a) if you're reasonably sure that partner misunderstood your 2NT bid, is it lawful not to alert, and to bid 3NT ? b) what do you do if, because of partner's 3C bid, you suddenly remember that you do play lebensohl in such a case ? Is it lawful to bid 3NT, then draw your screenmate's attention on the fact that you forgot to alert the former 2NT bid ? (his bidding wouldn't have been changed, whence you'd escape any further problems) c) what should partner do, given that he does remember the system, that is, 2NT is defined as "scrambling" in this case, and is asked by his screenmate what the difference is between a direct 3NT, and 2NT followed by 3NT ? (the question makes sense when playing lebensohl, but in a scramble context there is no defined answer) Thank you for your help Alain From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Oct 6 01:12:36 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:12:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Old case, new settings In-Reply-To: <4E8C5754.8070306@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E8C5754.8070306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: > Dear blmlists, > > Once again the problem of explaining one's (or pertner's) conventions > arose, but I suspect that the answers will be different here, as there > were screens. > > Your hold, both vul at teams : > > QTx > JTxx > T9x > QJx > > N E S(you) W > > 1NT 2Da p 2H > X p ? > > 2D = length in either major (whence 2H = P/C) > > You have the following meta-agreements : > - all low-level doubles in front of the long suit are for take-out (also > applies in would-be suits, as here) ; > - don't leaei take-out doubles in ; > - all undiscussed bids are natural and non forcing ; > > Whence you bid a natural, nonforcing 2NT. > > The board come back with 3C. You didn't see partner alert, there was no > timing that makes you suspect partner needed to explain the bidding, but > you strongly suspect that partner took your bid as lebensohl (which you > play only in a few specific circumstances). The 3C bid by partner is impossible if he took your 2NT as natural. Therefore, you have AI which indicates that he took 2NT as conventional. And with screens, there is no explanation from partner which would be UI indicating one conventional meaning of 2NT over another, so you are free to bid anything you want. > a) if you're reasonably sure that partner misunderstood your 2NT bid, is > it lawful not to alert, and to bid 3NT ? Yes. You do not have an agreement on the meaning of 3C, so there is no alert, and (as noted above) you do not have any UI which suggests 3NT over pass. > b) what do you do if, because of partner's 3C bid, you suddenly remember > that you do play lebensohl in such a case ? > Is it lawful to bid 3NT, then draw your screenmate's attention on the > fact that you forgot to alert the former 2NT bid ? > (his bidding wouldn't have been changed, whence you'd escape any further > problems) Again, this is the correct procedure. You bid 2NT which you now believe to be lebensohl, and forgot to alert. > c) what should partner do, given that he does remember the system, that > is, 2NT is defined as "scrambling" in this case, and is asked by his > screenmate what the difference is between a direct 3NT, and 2NT followed > by 3NT ? (the question makes sense when playing lebensohl, but in a > scramble context there is no defined answer) Partner should explain what he knows about the system; there is no need to have an agreement about an undefined sequence, and the opponents' guess is as good as his. (Possibly you intended to play diamonds if that was his long suit.) From david.j.barton at lineone.net Thu Oct 6 03:25:11 2011 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 02:25:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74FE23DFF6BE40488470D8AAEA8F3C3C@Lounge> Well my feeling is that the ruff at T2 is wrong. I aim to take 2 finesses in H but if I lose to the wrong singleton honour in W then a Club return will leave me unable to pick up the remaining Hxx in East. ********************************** david.j.barton at lineone.net ********************************** From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:52 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Cc: Marvin French ; ldixon at grapevine.com.au Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Imps (Butler Pairs scored against an Olympic datum) Dlr: South Vul: North-South North (Unlucky Expert) A842 9654 AQT9 8 South (Dummy) KQ7 AQT7 KJ83 A4 The uncontested auction proceeded -> SOUTH......NORTH 1D.........1H 4H.........4NT 5S (1).....6H (2) Pass (1) Two keycards in hearts plus the queen of hearts (2) If North had been a Lucky Expert then North would have tried bidding a choice-of-slams 6D The defenders use old-fashioned leads and signals. Trick 1...C5...CA...CJ...C8 Trick 2...C4...CK...H4...C2 Now plan the rest of the play, either: (a) the expert play, or (b) the lucky play, or (c) the luckily expert play. Remember that the subtitle of the classic Card Play Technique, by Mollo & Gardener, is "the Art of Being Lucky". Kind regards, Richard "UE" Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111006/b6a3865f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 6 04:53:17 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 13:53:17 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Imps (Butler Pairs scored against an Olympic datum) Dlr: South Vul: North-South North (Unlucky Expert) A842 9654 AQT9 8 South (Dummy) KQ7 AQT7 KJ83 A4 The uncontested auction proceeded -> SOUTH......NORTH 1D.........1H 4H.........4NT 5S (1).....6H (2) Pass (1) Two keycards in hearts plus the queen of hearts (2) If North had been a Lucky Expert then North would have tried bidding a choice-of-slams 6D The defenders use old-fashioned leads and signals. Trick 1...C5...CA...CJ...C8 Trick 2...C4...CK...H4...C2 Now plan the rest of the play, either: (a) the expert play, or (b) the lucky play, or (c) the luckily expert play. David Barton, a Lucky Expert, avoids the trick question -> Well my feeling is that the ruff at T2 is wrong. I aim to take 2 finesses in H but if I lose to the wrong singleton honour in W then a Club return will leave me unable to pick up the remaining Hxx in East. Tom Cheng -> What's the bridge laws angle of this contribution please? First criterion of the second sentence of Law 72A -> The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants Richard Hills -> Many years ago an Editorial in The Bridge World discussed a letter from a victim of a Calcutta tournament. This form of bridge tournament is a round-robin Butler Pairs with money prizes in which players are permitted to "buy shares" in their future opponents. The victim and his partner had no hope of earning any money prize in their own right at the start of the last match. But their final opponents did have a chance of a money prize, and the victim's partner had bought shares in those opponents. During that match the victim's partner carefully did not perpetrate any gross errors. But there were a string of subtle errors (such as my subtle Unlucky Expert error in choosing a Trick 2 club ruff) which meant a steady flow of imps to the opponents and a consequent maximum win for them. The victim never spoke to his erstwhile partner again. But the victim wrote to Edgar Kaplan asking if the erstwhile partner had been unethical. Edgar Kaplan's nuanced reply was that the erstwhile partner had high real-world ethics if the money was needed for food for his starving children. And while Edgar Kaplan believed that the erstwhile partner lacked bridge ethics, Edgar Kaplan could not point to any Law that the erstwhile partner had violated (this is one reason that Law 72A was revised in 2007). An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a side must strive for a higher score on each and every board. For the EBU a side must strive for a higher score over the entire tournament. That is, if the Conditions of Contest for an EBU tournament are defective, so that it is advantageous for a side to play misere during a stage of that tournament, then the EBU permits an Unlucky Expert to ruff a club at Trick 2 without any disciplinary consequences. Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are Dead (1967) -> The bad end unhappily, the good unluckily. That is what tragedy means. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111006/fc5d21af/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Oct 6 06:54:34 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:54:34 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D and claims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8D348A.4090700@iinet.net.au> Law 45D - Card Misplayed by Dummy > > If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not > name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before > each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw > and return to his hand a card played after the error but before > attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, > declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. > (See Law 16D.) On Monday Evening I had a call to a table Contract 4H by E .............................North .............................S ktx West....................................East S J9x....................................H xx ..............................................D x ...........................South ...........................S xx ...........................D K East called for a spade from dummy West played the J North played the T without looking up (He Knew which 3 cards were in dummy) East threw the losing Diamond and claimed North: Director please I ruled the S x was played from dummy (Law 45D) and declarer was losing the D Trick. apart from the ethical implications for declarer, there are a number of continuations Initially the cards may be returned to the board without a director call but NS feeling something went wrong then (a) they all take their cards from the next board (and play to the first trick of the new board) or (B) the Director calls the change for the next round or (C) the session ends My opinion is that after a claim, Law 45D would cease to have effect When after there was no objection to the claim, the cards were returned to the board. Opinions or correct answers welcome cheers bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111006/b6650b71/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 6 07:37:49 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 16:37:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D and claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E8D348A.4090700@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Bill Kemp -> On Monday evening I had a call to a table Contract 4H by E .............North .............S KTx .............H --- .............D --- .............C --- West.............................East S J9x............................S --- H ---............................H xx D ---............................D x C ---............................C --- .............South .............S xx .............H --- .............D K .............C --- East called for a spade from dummy West played the J Law 46B2 - Incomplete or Erroneous Call In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. Richard Hills -> If West should argue that declarer had the incontrovertible intention to lead a cost-nothing jack of spades, as Director I would have the incontrovertible intention to answer, "Pull the other one, it's got bells on!" Bill Kemp -> North played the T without looking up (He knew which 3 cards were in dummy) East threw the losing Diamond and claimed North: Director please I ruled the S x was played from dummy (Law 45D) and declarer was losing the D Trick. Richard Hills -> Yes, I agree with Bill that the actual happenings at the table are easily rectified by Law 45D. Bill Kemp -> apart from the ethical implications for declarer, Richard Hills -> Both declarer and dummy have prima facie dodgy ethics, so as Director I would use Law 81C7 to refer the declaring side to the relevant Disciplinary Committee for them to determine if the declaring side knowingly infracted Law 45D and/or Law 79A2. Bill Kemp -> there are a number of continuations Initially the cards may be returned to the board without a director call but NS feeling something went wrong then (a) they all take their cards from the next board (and play to the first trick of the new board) or (B) the Director calls the change for the next round or (C) the session ends My opinion is that after a claim, Law 45D would cease to have effect. When after there was no objection to the claim, the cards were returned to the board. Opinions or correct answers welcome cheers bill Richard Hills -> For all of Bill's claim hypotheticals, when the operation of Law 45D has been hypothetically truncated by an agreed claim, it seems to me that rectification can still be provided by Law 69B2 - Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111006/129cdf23/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Thu Oct 6 08:16:29 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:16:29 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Law 45D and claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8D47BD.7040001@iinet.net.au> Thak you Richard Supplementary Question If the claim was the last two cards (the only trumps), and , if the time limit has expired on Law 45D then (A) can there be a successful objection to the claim (within the time allowed) if not then (B) Could I use Law 12 A1 to adjust. Cheers bill On 6/10/2011 1:37 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Bill Kemp -> > > On Monday evening I had a call to a table > > Contract 4H by E > > .............North > .............S KTx > .............H --- > .............D --- > .............C --- > West.............................East > S J9x............................S --- > H ---............................H xx > D ---............................D x > C ---............................C --- > .............South > .............S xx > .............H --- > .............D K > .............C --- > > East called for a spade from dummy > West played the J > > Law 46B2 - Incomplete or Erroneous Call > > In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to > be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when > declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): > If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have > called the lowest card of the suit indicated. > > Richard Hills -> > > If West should argue that declarer had the incontrovertible intention > to lead a cost-nothing jack of spades, as Director I would have the > incontrovertible intention to answer, "Pull the other one, it's got > bells on!" > > Bill Kemp -> > > North played the T without looking up (He knew which 3 cards were in > dummy) > East threw the losing Diamond and claimed > > North: Director please > > I ruled the S x was played from dummy (Law 45D) and declarer was > losing the D Trick. > > Richard Hills -> > > Yes, I agree with Bill that the actual happenings at the table are > easily rectified by Law 45D. > > Bill Kemp -> > > apart from the ethical implications for declarer, > > Richard Hills -> > > Both declarer and dummy have prima facie dodgy ethics, so as Director > I would use Law 81C7 to refer the declaring side to the relevant > Disciplinary Committee for them to determine if the declaring side > knowingly infracted Law 45D and/or Law 79A2. > > Bill Kemp -> > > there are a number of continuations > > Initially the cards may be returned to the board without a director > call but NS feeling something went wrong > > then > > (a) they all take their cards from the next board (and play to the > first trick of the new board) > > or > > (B) the Director calls the change for the next round > > or > > (C) the session ends > > My opinion is that after a claim, Law 45D would cease to have effect. > When after there was no objection to the claim, the cards were > returned to the board. > > Opinions or correct answers welcome > > cheers > > bill > > Richard Hills -> > > For all of Bill's claim hypotheticals, when the operation of Law 45D > has been hypothetically truncated by an agreed claim, it seems to me > that rectification can still be provided by > > Law 69B2 - Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision > > Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within > the Correction Period established under Law 79C: > if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would > likely have won had the play continued. > The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111006/28332e0d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 6 22:55:08 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:55:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 12A1 (was Law 45D) and claims [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E8D47BD.7040001@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Statement One: Statement Two is false. Statement Two: Statement One is true. If one of the above statements is read in isolation, there is no problem. Only if both statements are read together is there a paradox. Bill Kemp -> [snip] Could I use Law 12 A1 to adjust. Cheers bill Law 12A1 - Power to Award an Adjusted Score The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. Law 12B2 - Objectives of Score Adjustment The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Richard Hills -> If one of the above Laws is read in isolation, there is no problem. Only if both Laws are read together is there a paradox. If I was El Supremo of the WBF Drafting Committee in 2018, then I would paradoctor this paradox. 2018 hypothetical Law 12A1 - Power to Award an Adjusted Score The Director may award an adjusted score when the Director judges that a rectification provided in these Laws does not redress damage (see definition in Law 12B1 below) to the non-offending side for the particular type of infraction committed at the same table* by the offending side. * A ruling from the Director may be sought only by a side present at the table where the irregularity occurred (note that the offending side may draw attention to its own infraction). The Director'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"). 2018 hypothetical Law 12B2 - Objectives of Score Adjustment The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side. 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/20111006/d263951c/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 7 12:56:43 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:56:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/10/2011 4:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Imps (Butler Pairs scored against an Olympic datum) > Dlr: South > Vul: North-South > > North (Unlucky Expert) > A842 > 9654 > AQT9 > 8 > > South (Dummy) > KQ7 > AQT7 > KJ83 > A4 > > The uncontested auction proceeded -> > > SOUTH......NORTH > 1D.........1H > 4H.........4NT > 5S (1).....6H (2) > Pass > > (1) Two keycards in hearts plus the queen of hearts > (2) If North had been a Lucky Expert then North would have tried > bidding a choice-of-slams 6D > > The defenders use old-fashioned leads and signals. > > Trick 1...C5...CA...CJ...C8 > Trick 2...C4...CK...H4...C2 > > Now plan the rest of the play, either: > > (a) the expert play, or > (b) the lucky play, or > (c) the luckily expert play. > > David Barton, a Lucky Expert, avoids the trick question -> > > Well my feeling is that the ruff at T2 is wrong. > > I aim to take 2 finesses in H but if I lose to the wrong singleton > honour in W then a Club return will leave me unable to pick up the > remaining Hxx in East. > > Tom Cheng -> > > What's the bridge laws angle of this contribution please? > > First criterion of the second sentence of Law 72A -> > > The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants > > Richard Hills -> > > Many years ago an Editorial in The Bridge World discussed a letter > from a victim of a Calcutta tournament. This form of bridge tournament > is a round-robin Butler Pairs with money prizes in which players are > permitted to "buy shares" in their future opponents. The victim and > his partner had no hope of earning any money prize in their own right > at the start of the last match. But their final opponents did have a > chance of a money prize, and the victim's partner had bought shares in > those opponents. During that match the victim's partner carefully did > not perpetrate any gross errors. But there were a string of subtle > errors (such as my subtle Unlucky Expert error in choosing a Trick 2 > club ruff) which meant a steady flow of imps to the opponents and a > consequent maximum win for them. The victim never spoke to his > erstwhile partner again. But the victim wrote to Edgar Kaplan asking > if the erstwhile partner had been unethical. > AG : as usual, given that one knows who has shares in whom before the tournament begins, and given that in such a tournament everyone plays everyone, the error is the organizing team's : they should make everything possible to ensure that those two pairs met as early as possible. Players shouldn't be taken responsible for the tournament organizer's errors. > > Edgar Kaplan's nuanced reply was that the erstwhile partner had high > real-world ethics if the money was needed for food for his starving > children. And while Edgar Kaplan believed that the erstwhile partner > lacked bridge ethics, Edgar Kaplan could not point to any Law that the > erstwhile partner had violated (this is one reason that Law 72A was > revised in 2007). > > An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher > score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a side > must strive for a higher score on each and every board. > AG : This is utterly absurd. How could one ask a player to strive for the best score on every board if this means risking the loss of the match ? It is good strategy, and should be allowed, to accept losing a few points on a difficult deal to avoid losing more, especially if you're ahead in the match. Would you disallow this ? (and I don't even consider Swiss tournaments) Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111007/2e0c4895/attachment.html From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Oct 7 14:55:34 2011 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:55:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E8EF6C6.6000008@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 6/10/2011 4:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> Imps (Butler Pairs scored against an Olympic datum) >> Dlr: South >> Vul: North-South >> >> North (Unlucky Expert) >> A842 >> 9654 >> AQT9 >> 8 >> >> South (Dummy) >> KQ7 >> AQT7 >> KJ83 >> A4 >> >> The uncontested auction proceeded -> >> >> SOUTH......NORTH >> 1D.........1H >> 4H.........4NT >> 5S (1).....6H (2) >> Pass >> >> (1) Two keycards in hearts plus the queen of hearts >> (2) If North had been a Lucky Expert then North would have tried >> bidding a choice-of-slams 6D >> >> The defenders use old-fashioned leads and signals. >> >> Trick 1...C5...CA...CJ...C8 >> Trick 2...C4...CK...H4...C2 >> >> Now plan the rest of the play, either: >> >> (a) the expert play, or >> (b) the lucky play, or >> (c) the luckily expert play. >> >> David Barton, a Lucky Expert, avoids the trick question -> >> >> Well my feeling is that the ruff at T2 is wrong. >> >> I aim to take 2 finesses in H but if I lose to the wrong singleton >> honour in W then a Club return will leave me unable to pick up the >> remaining Hxx in East. >> >> Tom Cheng -> >> >> What's the bridge laws angle of this contribution please? >> >> First criterion of the second sentence of Law 72A -> >> >> The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants >> >> Richard Hills -> >> >> Many years ago an Editorial in The Bridge World discussed a letter >> from a victim of a Calcutta tournament. This form of bridge tournament >> is a round-robin Butler Pairs with money prizes in which players are >> permitted to "buy shares" in their future opponents. The victim and >> his partner had no hope of earning any money prize in their own right >> at the start of the last match. But their final opponents did have a >> chance of a money prize, and the victim's partner had bought shares in >> those opponents. During that match the victim's partner carefully did >> not perpetrate any gross errors. But there were a string of subtle >> errors (such as my subtle Unlucky Expert error in choosing a Trick 2 >> club ruff) which meant a steady flow of imps to the opponents and a >> consequent maximum win for them. The victim never spoke to his >> erstwhile partner again. But the victim wrote to Edgar Kaplan asking >> if the erstwhile partner had been unethical. >> > AG : as usual, given that one knows who has shares in whom before the > tournament begins, and given that in such a tournament everyone plays > everyone, the error is the organizing team's : they should make > everything possible to ensure that those two pairs met as early as > possible. Players shouldn't be taken responsible for the tournament > organizer's errors. as usual, the answer lies in looking at how other organisations deal with the problem: in tennis, a player who takes bets on tennis games is suspended 3 years. jpr > >> >> Edgar Kaplan's nuanced reply was that the erstwhile partner had high >> real-world ethics if the money was needed for food for his starving >> children. And while Edgar Kaplan believed that the erstwhile partner >> lacked bridge ethics, Edgar Kaplan could not point to any Law that the >> erstwhile partner had violated (this is one reason that Law 72A was >> revised in 2007). >> >> An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher >> score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a side >> must strive for a higher score on each and every board. >> > AG : This is utterly absurd. How could one ask a player to strive for > the best score on every board if this means risking the loss of the > match ? > It is good strategy, and should be allowed, to accept losing a few > points on a difficult deal to avoid losing more, especially if you're > ahead in the match. Would you disallow this ? > (and I don't even consider Swiss tournaments) > > > > 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 blml at arcor.de Fri Oct 7 15:44:29 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:44:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <76228938.1063699.1317995069516.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail16.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 6/10/2011 4:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher > > score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a side > > must strive for a higher score on each and every board. > > > AG : This is utterly absurd. How could one ask a player to strive for > the best score on every board if this means risking the loss of the > match ? > It is good strategy, and should be allowed, to accept losing a few > points on a difficult deal to avoid losing more, especially if you're > ahead in the match. Would you disallow this ? > (and I don't even consider Swiss tournaments) Agree with Alain. For example, in an IMPs match, it is very common to not waste much energy, time, and concentration on trying to squeeze out an extra overtrick on a difficult deal. It is also common than when time penalties loom, boards are bid and played faster and less carefully than when there is no time pressure. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 7 16:14:04 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:14:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert In-Reply-To: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1D77467B-645B-47E5-A74A-F59787B6C031@starpower.net> On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 6/10/2011 4:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher >> score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a >> side must strive for a higher score on each and every board. >> > AG : This is utterly absurd. How could one ask a player to strive > for the best score on every board if this means risking the loss > of the match ? > It is good strategy, and should be allowed, to accept losing a few > points on a difficult deal to avoid losing more, especially if > you're ahead in the match. Would you disallow this ? > (and I don't even consider Swiss tournaments) It is worse than that. Every book ever written on the subject of matchpoint strategy discusses "shooting". When you estimate your score towards the end of a matchpoint event as not quite good enough to win (or break into the overall rankings, or finish in the top ten for that Blue Ribbon Q, or whatever your legitimate objective is that day), the experts advise adopting a somewhat, although not extreme, higher-risk higher-gain strategy with a somewhat lower expectation than one's usual "down-the-middle" game. Taken at face value, the ACBL/ACF regulation would make this common everyday practice, part of every experienced matchpoint player's repertoire of strategies, illegal. Yes, you should be obligated to play to win at all times. But the last time I looked, prizes and masterpoints were still being awarded for winning events and sessions, not for winning single boards. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 7 16:48:44 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:48:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert In-Reply-To: <1D77467B-645B-47E5-A74A-F59787B6C031@starpower.net> References: <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> <1D77467B-645B-47E5-A74A-F59787B6C031@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4E8F114C.9040606@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/10/2011 16:14, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 6/10/2011 4:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher >>> score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a >>> side must strive for a higher score on each and every board. >>> >> AG : This is utterly absurd. How could one ask a player to strive >> for the best score on every board if this means risking the loss >> of the match ? >> It is good strategy, and should be allowed, to accept losing a few >> points on a difficult deal to avoid losing more, especially if >> you're ahead in the match. Would you disallow this ? >> (and I don't even consider Swiss tournaments) > It is worse than that. Every book ever written on the subject of > matchpoint strategy discusses "shooting". When you estimate your > score towards the end of a matchpoint event as not quite good enough > to win (or break into the overall rankings, or finish in the top ten > for that Blue Ribbon Q, or whatever your legitimate objective is that > day), the experts advise adopting a somewhat, although not extreme, > higher-risk higher-gain strategy with a somewhat lower expectation > than one's usual "down-the-middle" game. Taken at face value, the > ACBL/ACF regulation would make this common everyday practice, part of > every experienced matchpoint player's repertoire of strategies, illegal. > > Yes, you should be obligated to play to win at all times. But the > last time I looked, prizes and masterpoints were still being awarded > for winning events and sessions, not for winning single boards. > AG : less common perhaps, but hopefully not illegal, would be the practice of chucking one or two "obvioous" overtricks at the beginning of a long match to give them a feeling of superiority ; if you pick the right opponents, this might enhance your probability of winning the match. From blml at arcor.de Fri Oct 7 18:35:06 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:35:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert In-Reply-To: <4E8F114C.9040606@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E8F114C.9040606@ulb.ac.be> <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> <1D77467B-645B-47E5-A74A-F59787B6C031@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1807342251.483739.1318005306609.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 7/10/2011 16:14, Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > >> Le 6/10/2011 4:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >>> An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher > >>> score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a > >>> side must strive for a higher score on each and every board. > >>> > >> AG : This is utterly absurd. How could one ask a player to strive > >> for the best score on every board if this means risking the loss > >> of the match ? > >> It is good strategy, and should be allowed, to accept losing a few > >> points on a difficult deal to avoid losing more, especially if > >> you're ahead in the match. Would you disallow this ? > >> (and I don't even consider Swiss tournaments) > > It is worse than that. Every book ever written on the subject of > > matchpoint strategy discusses "shooting". When you estimate your > > score towards the end of a matchpoint event as not quite good enough > > to win (or break into the overall rankings, or finish in the top ten > > for that Blue Ribbon Q, or whatever your legitimate objective is that > > day), the experts advise adopting a somewhat, although not extreme, > > higher-risk higher-gain strategy with a somewhat lower expectation > > than one's usual "down-the-middle" game. Taken at face value, the > > ACBL/ACF regulation would make this common everyday practice, part of > > every experienced matchpoint player's repertoire of strategies, illegal. > > > > Yes, you should be obligated to play to win at all times. But the > > last time I looked, prizes and masterpoints were still being awarded > > for winning events and sessions, not for winning single boards. > > > AG : less common perhaps, but hopefully not illegal, would be the > practice of chucking one or two "obvioous" overtricks at the beginning > of a long match to give them a feeling of superiority ; if you pick the > right opponents, this might enhance your probability of winning the match. Or perhaps a Grosvenor Coup. Thomas From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 7 22:49:44 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:49:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert In-Reply-To: <1807342251.483739.1318005306609.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <4E8F114C.9040606@ulb.ac.be> <4E8EDAEB.7060902@ulb.ac.be> <1D77467B-645B-47E5-A74A-F59787B6C031@starpower.net> <1807342251.483739.1318005306609.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Le 7/10/2011 16:14, Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> >>>> Le 6/10/2011 4:53, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >>> >>>>> An outstanding problem is that the revised Law 72A phrase "higher >>>>> score" is subject to local regulation. For the ACBL and the ABF a >>>>> side must strive for a higher score on each and every board. >>>> >>>> AG : This is utterly absurd. How could one ask a player to strive >>>> for the best score on every board if this means risking the loss >>>> of the match ? >>>> It is good strategy, and should be allowed, to accept losing a few >>>> points on a difficult deal to avoid losing more, especially if >>>> you're ahead in the match. Would you disallow this ? >>>> (and I don't even consider Swiss tournaments) >>> >>> It is worse than that. Every book ever written on the subject of >>> matchpoint strategy discusses "shooting". When you estimate your >>> score towards the end of a matchpoint event as not quite good enough >>> to win (or break into the overall rankings, or finish in the top ten >>> for that Blue Ribbon Q, or whatever your legitimate objective is >>> that >>> day), the experts advise adopting a somewhat, although not extreme, >>> higher-risk higher-gain strategy with a somewhat lower expectation >>> than one's usual "down-the-middle" game. Taken at face value, the >>> ACBL/ACF regulation would make this common everyday practice, >>> part of >>> every experienced matchpoint player's repertoire of strategies, >>> illegal. >>> >>> Yes, you should be obligated to play to win at all times. But the >>> last time I looked, prizes and masterpoints were still being awarded >>> for winning events and sessions, not for winning single boards. >> >> AG : less common perhaps, but hopefully not illegal, would be the >> practice of chucking one or two "obvioous" overtricks at the >> beginning >> of a long match to give them a feeling of superiority ; if you >> pick the >> right opponents, this might enhance your probability of winning >> the match. > > Or perhaps a Grosvenor Coup. Or... A bit of background first, then a confession. Every couple of months, the Washington Bridge League runs a Flight A board-a-match event. This is as strong an event as you can find short of an NABC final. It attracts the cream of the D.C. area bridge crop, including at least a double-handful of world-class players. Although I am vastly overmatched in this field -- most of these folks regularly clean my clock in our IMP league -- I do very well in this particular event, and have won it a few times. I now reveal the secret to my success: I win boards. ndThat's because I play to win boards. Which might mean taking the 48% finesse instead of playing for the 52% drop, effectively flipping a slightly biased coin for a win or a loss, while the IMP-oriented experts around me are all taking the 52% line on autopilot and settling for a push. Or leaping to what is likely to be a "no-play" slam with little or no investigation, expecting to make it and win the board if my opponent fails to find the no-play lead after an uninformative auction. At the end of the day, the not too infrequent result has been that the world-class experts wound up with solid, above average scores while I got to take home the prize. Which I'm quite certain I never could have done had I adopted a strategy of maximizing my expectation on each individual board, forcing me to, in effect, play for pushes instead of wins. For me, doing that would mean nothing less than abandoning any actual chance of winning the game. And if I'm not going to try to win the game, why am I showing up? Is this really illegal? Have I been cheating my way to those wins? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 11 02:22:20 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:22:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eric Landau on his board-a-match strategy [snip] Although I am vastly overmatched in this field -- most of these folks regularly clean my clock in our IMP league -- I do very well in this particular event, and have won it a few times. I now reveal the secret to my success: I win boards. That's because I play to win boards. Which might mean taking the 48% finesse instead of playing for the 52% drop, effectively flipping a slightly biased coin for a win or a loss, while the IMP-oriented experts around me are all taking the 52% line on autopilot and settling for a push. [snip] Is this really illegal? Have I been cheating my way to those wins? WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th October 2010, item 14 With reference to Law 72A the subject of so-termed ?dumping? was discussed. It was agreed this is a matter belonging to regulations. It was noted that there exist widely diverging opinions on the subject; the WBF asserts that players must play to win ?at all times and in all circumstances?, reports suggest that the ACBL calls upon players to play to win every board, the English Bridge Union finds no objection to players who try to lose a match with the object of having the best chance of winning the event, and others have advocated that the object should always be to win a session or a match (which it is believed is the substance of the WBF stance.) ***It was observed that a side that believes it has the upper hand in a match must surely be within its rights if its aim is to avoid swings.*** Richard Hills The final sentence of the WBF minute, "It was observed that a side that believes it has the upper hand in a match must surely be within its rights if its aim is to avoid swings," is logically equivalent to "It was observed that a side that believes it is the underdog in a match must surely be within its rights if its aim is to create swings." And since Eric Landau has a demonstrable bridge reason to believe that he is an underdog in each board-a-match, because the other contestants regularly clean his clock at IMPs, Eric's strategy seems legal to me. Indeed, Eric's win-or-lose-but-not-push strategy is consistent with the third stanza of Rudyard Kipling's If. If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breath a word about your loss. Some safety plays are automatic, always gaining and never costing. But other safety plays fail to maximise imp expectancy, therefore are theoretically illegal in the ACBL and ABF. For example, Victor Mollo wrote about an amusing encounter between the Secretary Bird (RHO defender) and the Rueful Rabbit (declarer) in a 3NT contract. Dummy held AKQT54 of diamonds with no further side entry. Declarer's diamonds were the trey and deuce. RR had read a book on safety plays, so led a diamond from hand intending to possibly sacrifice an overtrick by finessing the ten. SB warned RR that the lead was in dummy. Miffed at missing the "book" safety play, RR led the four of diamonds from dummy. Karapet the Unlucky (LHO defender) held all of the outstanding diamonds, and moaned to SB that a 5-0 break was apparently inconceivable in RR's book. 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/20111011/27a88c0b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 11 05:10:53 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:10:53 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1D77467B-645B-47E5-A74A-F59787B6C031@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau, October 2011 [snip] Yes, you should be obligated to play to win at all times. But the last time I looked, prizes and masterpoints were still being awarded for winning events and sessions, not for winning single boards. Eric Landau, May 2006 [snip] It's just a game, isn't it? Master points are just a way to keep score. They're not really worth anything, are they? Am I being unrealistically naive about this? Alfie Kohn interview (1995) Another group of studies shows that when people are offered a reward for doing a task that involves some degree of problem solving or creativity ? or for doing it well ? they will tend to do lower quality work than those offered no reward. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111011/1489d232/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 11 17:47:29 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:47:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason Message-ID: I think Mike Flader got an answer wrong in the latest ACBL Bridge Bulletin. (I normally like his answers and think he does a good job.) The 9 was the opening lead, declarer reflexively asked what 9's mean, and got an answer. It turns out he had AJx opposite K10x and could figure out what it was and didn't need to know anyway. Mike said "Such a question is a violation of the Proprieties, addressed in Laws 73D and 73F." But 73D is about tempo and manner, not asking questions. And.. "Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk." But the opponents are not allowed to draw inferences from a question, right? If declarer asks this question reflexively or as a matter of practice, I can't find any violation in 73F. He continues, "To paraphrase, if an innocent player draws a false inference from your question, for which you have no demonstrable bridge reason for asking, and when you could have known that your question could work to your benefit, the director shall assign an adjusted score." I think I can construct two demonstrable bridge reasons for asking. But in this case those reasons seem to be dwarfed by the fact that the information is UI. "Simply put, the laws do not allow you to ask questions to which you already know the answers." This might be a good principle. But this isn't in the laws, right? Analogously, I can sort my hand any way I want, and I do intentionally mis-sort my hand and essentially my only reason is to deceive any opponent who might try to draw an inference from the way my hand is sorted. But this has to be legal, right? Bob F. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 11 23:32:15 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:32:15 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted -> [snip] But 73D is about tempo and manner, not asking questions. [snip] Law 73D2, first criterion -> A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ***remark*** Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> remark, n. comment, a thing said 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/20111011/0677b3b4/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Oct 12 00:31:00 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:31:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Louisville (Spring 2011) NABC+ Cases Posted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E94C3A4.3030604@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111011/d510ea70/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 12 03:22:57 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:22:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:32:15 -0400, wrote: > Robert Frick asserted -> > > [snip] > But 73D is about tempo and manner, not asking questions. > [snip] > > Law 73D2, first criterion -> > > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ***remark*** > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> > > remark, n. comment, a thing said Yes, but surely "remark" does not refer to anything a player says. Without bidding boxes, that definition would include calls. Surely we are allow to attempt to mislead opponents by calls and plays. And I must be able to deceive opponents by my decisions concerning irregularities -- for example I might ban a club lead (following a LOOT) to deceive. Right? Instead, "remark" surely means "comment", something more extraneous than the official procedures of the game. There will also be examples for when a player makes a mistake in bidding. Or you could I suppose be right and the lawbook is wrong once again. BTW, I got the director called on me once when I made a long explanation of what my partners 4 of hearts opening lead could be when in fact I could tell from my hand that it was a singleton. The director apparently did not consider my explanation a remark. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 12 05:14:25 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:14:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted -> [snip] But 73D is about tempo and manner, not asking questions. [snip] Law 73D2, first criterion -> A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ***remark*** Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> remark, n. comment, a thing said Robert Frick asserted -> Yes, but surely "remark" does not refer to anything a player says. Richard Hills -> Petitio principii. A remark surely includes each and everything a bridge player says. Pocket Oxford Dictionary "a thing said". So a bridge player's question is a subset of the general category of remark. And declarer's reflexive question (about the opening lead of a zero-or-two-higher nine) was a Law 73D2 misleading remark, because declarer knew from cards hidden in hand that two-higher was not an option. Robert Frick asserted -> Without bidding boxes, that definition would include calls. Surely we are allowed to attempt to mislead opponents by calls [snip] Richard Hills -> This is the logical fallacy of the weak analogy. The Law 40A3 "right" to mislead opponents with a psyche is _not_ an unfettered "right", since it is subject to Law 40C1 (which prohibits undisclosed implicit understandings) and Law 72A (which prohibits frivolous psyching). Likewise the Law 20F1 / F2 / F3 "right" to ask questions is fettered by Law 20G1, Law 73B1, Law 73D2 and Law 73F. Robert Frick asserted -> BTW, I got the director called on me once when I made a long explanation of what my partners 4 of hearts opening lead could be when in fact I could tell from my hand that it was a singleton. The director apparently did not consider my explanation a remark. Richard Hills -> Technically the explanation by Bob was a remark. But since the explanation was also an accurate description of the pre-existing mutual explicit and implicit understanding of Bob's partnership, it was _not_ a Law 73D2 "attempt to mislead" the opponents about the mutual partnership understanding. The fact that Bob's partner held a singleton when Bob explained additional possibilities is irrelevant to "attempt to mislead". Law 75C, second sentence -> Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. Robert Frick asserted -> [snip] Or you could I suppose be right and the lawbook is wrong once again. Richard Hills -> No, the Lawbook is right once again, but its correct interpretation sometimes requires simple knowledge. Such as the simple knowledge found in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary. Henry Charles Beeching (1859 - 1919), epigram on Oxford Professor Benjamin Jowett (1817 - 1893) -> First come I; my name is Jowett. There's no knowledge but I know it. I am master of this college: What I don't know isn't knowledge. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111012/c4f7979d/attachment-0001.html From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 12 14:02:04 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:02:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> 1092 J63 A42 K762 A3 85 AQ75 K842 KJ93 Q105 A53 Q1094 KQJ764 109 876 J8 Dealer South; E/W vulnerable. IMPs There was an interesting ruling at a local club in London on this hand. South opened a psychic 2H and the opposition were soon in 3NT and South tried a speculative double. North was rather confused by this, and there was certainly no agreement to play a Watson double of 3NT to ask partner not to lead one's suit, but as a matter of bridge common sense North decided to lead the ten of spades, and declarer drifted two off. West, whose tufts of hair above his ears reminded one of the secretary bird, quoted part of the EBU OB6A3: " if you play that a double of 3NT asks partner not to lead the suit you?ve bid (Watson), you may not make such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche." However, South was ready for him, quoting back 40A3, again verbatim: "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, which this clearly was not." "The EBU regulation can only apply if we have a partnership understanding on this double - indeed my partner is a visitor from Easter Island and I have never played with him before. The EBU cannot prevent one from doubling here." The only discussion between North-South at the start was "Three weak twos; strong NT partner, and standard carding and signals?" South replied; "Yep, high encouraging and normal count, red suit transfers and simple Stayman". How do you rule? The key question when this was discussed in another forum seemed to be "Did North-South have an implicit agreement?" I argued not: "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players." I submitted that *mutual* experience required the pair to have played together before, or to have discussed the possible agreement. This double was a matter of bridge common sense. But opinion on what constitutes an implicit agreement would be welcomed. In the EBU such a double, by agreement, would be an illegal convention. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 12 14:42:30 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:42:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Unlucky Expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E958B36.3090304@ulb.ac.be> Le 11/10/2011 2:22, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Eric Landau on his board-a-match strategy > > [snip] > Although I am vastly overmatched in this field -- most of these folks > regularly clean my clock in our IMP league -- I do very well in this > particular > event, and have won it a few times. > > I now reveal the secret to my success: I win boards. > > That's because I play to win boards. Which might mean taking the 48% > finesse instead of playing for the 52% drop, effectively flipping a > slightly biased coin for a win or a loss, while the IMP-oriented > experts around me are all taking the 52% line on autopilot and > settling for a push. > [snip] > Is this really illegal? Have I been cheating my way to those wins? > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 8th October 2010, item 14 > > With reference to Law 72A the subject of so-termed 'dumping' was > discussed. It was agreed this is a matter belonging to regulations. It > was noted that there exist widely diverging opinions on the subject; > the WBF asserts that players must play to win "at all times and in all > circumstances" > AG : There are cases when playing to win in the short term and playing to win in the long term can't be achieved at the same time. Whence this statement is self-contradictory. Whence one can't be penalized for not obeying it when it can't be obeyed. > > Some safety plays are automatic, always gaining and never costing. But > other safety plays fail to maximise imp expectancy, therefore are > theoretically illegal in the ACBL and ABF. > Right ! And wrong, if you see what I mean. One more case : it has been called good strategy (although I don't agree) not to make 12 tricks in a tense match when you missed a cold slam, in order to avoid putting partner in a bad psychological stance. This will maximize your chances to win the session. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111012/8b235bf4/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Oct 12 14:53:03 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:53:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> Well Paul, you have answered your own question, IMO: PL wrote: > > How do you rule? The key question when this was discussed in another > forum seemed to be "Did North-South have an implicit agreement?" I > argued not: > > "Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership > may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual > experience or awareness of the players." I submitted that *mutual* > experience required the pair to have played together before, or to have > discussed the possible agreement. This double was a matter of bridge > common sense. > "Common" sense is an agreement between each and every one of the players, whether they know each other or not. For example, you did not mention that you agreed to play Stayman. Common sense says that you did - so is there an agreement or not? I'd say there is. > But opinion on what constitutes an implicit agreement would be welcomed. > In the EBU such a double, by agreement, would be an illegal convention. And this pair apparently "agreed" to play such a double. Ehh, am I correct in saying that it is not the double that is illegal, but the combination of the psyche and the double? In fact, the double is used to reveal the psyche, and this makes the psyche illegal? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From gampas at aol.com Wed Oct 12 15:25:14 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:25:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> [herman de Wael] And this pair apparently "agreed" to play such a double. Ehh, am I correct in saying that it is not the double that is illegal, but the combination of the psyche and the double? In fact, the double is used to reveal the psyche, and this makes the psyche illegal? [Paul Lamford] I see we are getting the Belgian antipathy towards psyches coming across strongly in your post. No, it is the combination of the agreement to play a Watson double, the double itself and the psyche which is illegal. If you play a Watson double, you may not use it if you have psyched. I think this rule may be illegal too, but that is not the point of this post. The pair did not "agree" to play the double. In fact one of the two had never heard of it, but guessed its meaning. On your basis, you would argue that someone who overcalls with a strong NT with xx xx xx Jxxxxxx and then passes Stayman is using Stayman to reveal the psyche. That must therefore be illegal by your thinking. Since time immemorial players have used passes of forcing bids to reveal a psyche. This is is only illegal if the primary purpose of the forcing bid is to control the psyche. I have opened a game-forcing 2C with a weak two in diamonds before now - twice in 11 years with different partners. The forced Two Diamond response is not a psyche control. The agreement is that it is a forced puppet. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 12 15:39:46 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:39:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E9598A2.4040907@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/10/2011 14:02, PL a ?crit : > 1092 > J63 > A42 > K762 > A3 85 > AQ75 K842 > KJ93 Q105 > A53 Q1094 > KQJ764 > 109 > 876 > J8 > > Dealer South; E/W vulnerable. IMPs > > There was an interesting ruling at a local club in London on this hand. > South opened a psychic 2H and the opposition were soon in 3NT and South > tried a speculative double. North was rather confused by this, and there > was certainly no agreement to play a Watson double of 3NT to ask partner > not to lead one's suit, but as a matter of bridge common sense North > decided to lead the ten of spades, and declarer drifted two off. West, > whose tufts of hair above his ears reminded one of the secretary bird, > quoted part of the EBU OB6A3: " if you play that a double of 3NT > asks partner not to lead the suit you?ve bid (Watson), you may not make > such a double if the earlier suit bid was a psyche." However, South was > ready for him, quoting back 40A3, again verbatim: "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, which this > clearly was not." "The EBU regulation can only apply if we have a > partnership understanding on this double - indeed my partner is a > visitor from Easter Island and I have never played with him before. The > EBU cannot prevent one from doubling here." The only discussion between > North-South at the start was "Three weak twos; strong NT partner, and > standard carding and signals?" South replied; "Yep, high encouraging and > normal count, red suit transfers and simple Stayman". > > How do you rule? The key question when this was discussed in another > forum seemed to be "Did North-South have an implicit agreement?" AG : this highly depends on whether South had already visited Easter Island, so it might be difficult to answer ex abrupto. On general principles, however, I'd allow the double and subsequent lead, because there is nothing to distinguish this psyche from a slip of the finger "I wanted to open 2S but pulled 2H and didn't realize it quickly enough" or from some error "I was still playing with this former partner who played transfers twos and realized this later". BTW, this regulation is ridiculous, for exactl?y those reasons. If North had led a spade without the double, then I'd rule Fielded Psyche. Here, the double is strange enough (would you give them a chance to escape ?) to at least suggest a spade lead. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 12 15:49:39 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:49:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E959AF3.8020502@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/10/2011 15:25, PL a ?crit : > [herman de Wael] > And this pair apparently "agreed" to play such a double. Ehh, am I > correct in saying that it is not the double that is illegal, but the > combination of the psyche and the double? In fact, the double is used to > reveal the psyche, and this makes the psyche illegal? > > [Paul Lamford] > I see we are getting the Belgian antipathy towards psyches coming across > strongly in your post. No, it is the combination of the agreement to > play a Watson double, the double itself and the psyche which is illegal. > If you play a Watson double, you may not use it if you have psyched. I > think this rule may be illegal too, but that is not the point of this post. > > The pair did not "agree" to play the double. In fact one of the two had > never heard of it, but guessed its meaning. AG : could be deemed self-serving. > On your basis, you would > argue that someone who overcalls with a strong NT with xx xx xx Jxxxxxx > and then passes Stayman is using Stayman to reveal the psyche. That must > therefore be illegal by your thinking. Since time immemorial players > have used passes of forcing bids to reveal a psyche. This is is only > illegal if the primary purpose of the forcing bid is to control the > psyche. I have opened a game-forcing 2C with a weak two in diamonds > before now AG : this is clearly illegal in many countries (psyche of a strong forcing openjng). This doesn't mean that I agree with those regulations. But they do exist. Best regards, Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 12 15:49:29 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:49:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> On 10/11/2011 11:47 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I think Mike Flader got an answer wrong in the latest ACBL Bridge > Bulletin. I think so, too. > (I normally like his answers and think he does a good job.) I have a different opinion. > The 9 was the opening lead, declarer reflexively asked what 9's mean, The actual quote from the letter was, "I reflexively asked right-hand opponent if they had any special lead agreements." This is quite a different matter from asking "what 9's mean." {Flader:] > "Such a question is a violation of the Proprieties, addressed in Laws 73D > and 73F." L73F2 is usually the one that's relevant, but 73D2 could matter sometimes, I suppose. > If declarer asks this question reflexively or as a matter of practice, I > can't find any violation in 73F. It depends on the phrasing of the question. A neutral question asking about agreements should be OK, but any phrasing that suggests something about the cards is problematic. > I think I can construct two demonstrable bridge reasons for asking. But in > this case those reasons seem to be dwarfed by the fact that the > information is UI. What information is UI? The opponents' agreements?! > "Simply put, the laws do not allow you to ask questions to which you > already know the answers." This, of course, is Mr. Flader's own invention, though it wouldn't surprise me if there are other ACBL directors who believe it. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 12 16:03:36 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:03:36 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com><4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> Message-ID: [Herman de Wael] And this pair apparently "agreed" to play such a double. Ehh, am I correct in saying that it is not the double that is illegal, but the combination of the psyche and the double? In fact, the double is used to reveal the psyche, and this makes the psyche illegal? [Paul Lamford] I see we are getting the Belgian antipathy towards psyches coming across strongly in your post. [Nigel] Herman (who invented the famous Herman Heart) has no antipathy to psychs. Anomalies, such as those high-lighted by Paul, are inevitable, as long as the WBF delegate authority to control systems and conventions. There would be a major problem if all disclosed method were permitted. just as for any obvious clarification or simplification of Bridge rules, BLMLers would be deprived of bone of contention and secretary birds would be denied an advantage but the game would be more fun for most players. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 12 16:15:07 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:15:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> References: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E95A0EB.50308@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/10/2011 15:49, Steve Willner a ?crit : >> "Simply put, the laws do not allow you to ask questions to which you >> already know the answers." > This, of course, is Mr. Flader's own invention, though it wouldn't > surprise me if there are other ACBL directors who believe it. > > AG : there is, however, the so-called Pro Question and this is -quite logically- disallowed. Anyway, what's "knowing the answer" ? Are you compelled to remember every carding agreement that they told you about ? (before the game or in an earlier deal) May I remember you the following case : Deal 17 : 1NT 2Ha etc. 2H : alerted, asked, explained (5 hearts and a minor) Deal 18 : p p p 1NT 2Ha 2H : alerted, not asked. However, because we play Dutch twos, the meaning of this bid is changed : 4H and 5+ spades. RHO didn't suspect it one minute. Too bad for her. This was highly unusual. And surely, if there hadn't been any difference, Mr. Fisher would have told them it was illegal to ask because she "already knew". Any regulation that makes a player damned whatever he does is plain wrong. Best regards Alain From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 12 17:23:04 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:23:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: <4E95A0EB.50308@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> <4E95A0EB.50308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: >Deal 17 : >1NT 2Ha etc. >2H : alerted, asked, explained (5 hearts and a minor) >Deal 18 : >p p p 1NT 2Ha >2H : alerted, not asked. However, because we play Dutch twos, the >meaning of this bid is changed : 4H and 5+ spades. RHO didn't suspect it >one minute. >Too bad for her. >This was highly unusual. It's not that uncommon. I have a similar type of agreement with several partners, playing Cappelletti by an unpassed hand, but DONT by a passed hand because there is no use for a penalty double. Thus, for me, 2H on Board 17 shows hearts and a minor, and 2H on Board 18 shows hearts and spades. And there are many other situations in which a convention may not apply on similar sequences. 1C P 1D 1H X!: showing three diamonds. 1C P 1D 1S X!: showing four hearts (and this isn't usually marked on the convention cards). >And surely, if there hadn't been any difference, Mr. Fisher would have >told them it was illegal to ask because she "already knew". "Already knew", if applied, must be proved, and these are illustrations of what does not constitute proof. From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Oct 12 17:37:19 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:37:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> On 10/12/2011 9:25 AM, PL wrote: > The pair did not "agree" to play the double. In fact one of the two had > never heard of it, but guessed its meaning. I don't see any "illegal convention" problem with the original case, given all the circumstances. Cynical old man that I am, I wonder whether UI might have been a factor, but that's a different matter. > someone who overcalls with a strong NT with xx xx xx Jxxxxxx > and then passes Stayman is using Stayman to reveal the psyche. The question is whether the true agreement about 1NT is "strong balanced" or instead "either strong balanced or weak with clubs." If the latter, is it a legal agreement, and was it properly disclosed? The ruling could go either way, I think, depending on partnership history. > I have opened a game-forcing 2C with a weak two in diamonds > before now - twice in 11 years with different partners. The forced Two > Diamond response is not a psyche control. The agreement is that it is a > forced puppet. Here I would certainly rule that your true agreement about 2C is "strong any, or weak with diamonds." If that's a legal agreement, then the only issue is possible MI. The difference between this case and the previous one is that here you can count on the 2D bid, whereas with the fake 1NT overcall, partner might not use Stayman. We should also be careful about language. When 'psych' is used in its legal meaning of departure from system, "psych control" is a logical impossibility. If you control for it, the "psych" is part of your system. That's fine if it's a legal agreement and properly disclosed, but if not, your opponents may be entitled to redress. Of course when 'psych' is used in its popular meaning of extremely weak or otherwise weird action, "psych control" has meaning. But for legal purposes, the questions are "What is the true agreement?" and then "Is the agreement legal, and was it properly disclosed?" From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 12 18:09:46 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:09:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: References: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> <4E95A0EB.50308@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E95BBCA.30804@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/10/2011 17:23, David Grabiner a ?crit : > "Alain Gottcheiner" writes: > >> Deal 17 : >> 1NT 2Ha etc. >> 2H : alerted, asked, explained (5 hearts and a minor) >> Deal 18 : >> p p p 1NT 2Ha >> 2H : alerted, not asked. However, because we play Dutch twos, the >> meaning of this bid is changed : 4H and 5+ spades. RHO didn't suspect it >> one minute. >> Too bad for her. >> This was highly unusual. > It's not that uncommon. I have a similar type of agreement with several > partners, playing Cappelletti by an unpassed hand, but DONT by a passed hand > because there is no use for a penalty double. Thus, for me, 2H on Board 17 > shows hearts and a minor, and 2H on Board 18 shows hearts and spades. > > And there are many other situations in which a convention may not apply on > similar sequences. > > 1C P 1D 1H > X!: showing three diamonds. > > 1C P 1D 1S > X!: showing four hearts (and this isn't usually marked on the convention cards). > >> And surely, if there hadn't been any difference, Mr. Fisher would have >> told them it was illegal to ask because she "already knew". > "Already knew", if applied, must be proved, and these are illustrations of what > does not constitute proof. AG : I follow you on this. And I go a little bit further. Being told something about one specific bid or carding shouldn't put "already knew" in the "on" position. You're allowed to forget it. (most bridge players have enough trouble remembering their own agreements) Best regards Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 12 18:22:22 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:22:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E95BEBE.40401@ulb.ac.be> Le 12/10/2011 17:37, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 10/12/2011 9:25 AM, PL wrote: >> The pair did not "agree" to play the double. In fact one of the two had >> never heard of it, but guessed its meaning. > I don't see any "illegal convention" problem with the original case, > given all the circumstances. Cynical old man that I am, I wonder > whether UI might have been a factor, but that's a different matter. > >> someone who overcalls with a strong NT with xx xx xx Jxxxxxx >> and then passes Stayman is using Stayman to reveal the psyche. > The question is whether the true agreement about 1NT is "strong > balanced" or instead "either strong balanced or weak with clubs." If > the latter, is it a legal agreement Hmm ... It would be disallowed in Brlgium, to be sure. > , and was it properly disclosed? The > ruling could go either way, I think, depending on partnership history. > >> I have opened a game-forcing 2C with a weak two in diamonds >> before now - twice in 11 years with different partners. The forced Two >> Diamond response is not a psyche control. The agreement is that it is a >> forced puppet. > Here I would certainly rule that your true agreement about 2C is "strong > any, or weak with diamonds." If that's a legal agreement, then the only > issue is possible MI. The difference between this case and the previous > one is that here you can count on the 2D bid, whereas with the fake 1NT > overcall, partner might not use Stayman. AG : except, of course, if they agreed it or if partner has some reasons to be suspicious. Partnership history, you know. > > We should also be careful about language. When 'psych' is used in its > legal meaning of departure from system, "psych control" is a logical > impossibility. If you control for it, the "psych" is part of your > system. That's fine if it's a legal agreement and properly disclosed, AG : but remember the Rule of 18. Of course when 'psych' is used in its popular meaning of extremely weak or otherwise weird action, "psych control" has meaning. The confusion comes from history : there was a school who advocated opening on weak (typically 3-6 HCP) hands, albeit naturally and with specific criteria about where the points are. They called them psyches, because at this time those openings were called psyches. But I don't see any contradiction. The name of the convention is "psych control". This doesn't mean that they are made to control psyches. It's just a name. There are umpteen English compound words which can't be split into coherent parts. A blueprint isn't printed and it isn't blue anymore. French-speaking persons can check that a "chauve-souris" (bat) isn't a mouse and isn't bald. Best regards, Alain From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 13 00:51:08 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:51:08 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: William Shakespeare, Richard III -> "Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this sun of York." Paul Lamford -> I have opened a game-forcing 2C with a weak two in diamonds before now - twice in 11 years with different partners. The forced Two Diamond response is not a psyche control. The agreement is that it is a forced puppet. Steve Willner asserted -> Here I would certainly rule that your true agreement about 2C is "strong any, or weak with diamonds." Richard Hills -> Here I would certainly rule otherwise. If the Laws stated that Paul Lamford could have an agreement with Paul Lamford, then Steve Willner's assertion would be correct. But since Paul has been meticulous in minimising his deviations, then Law 40C1 and Law 40C2 demonstrate that there has _not_ been an infraction of an undisclosed _partnership_ understanding. Instead Paul's notional _partnership_ understanding of 2C "strong any" is Paul's actual _partnership_ understanding of 2C "strong any". Law 40C1, first sentence -> A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Law 40C2 -> Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods. David Goldfarb describing John M. Ford's story, The Adventure of the Solitary Engineer -> The story is a Holmes pastiche. It concerns an asteroid miner's death on an asteroid that was covered in ice. Forensic instruments at the scene give anomalous readings, and the corporation is concerned that it was murder. Holmes works out that even though alcohol was forbidden in the workplace, the miner smuggled in a bottle of wine and died an accidental death while drunk: the bottle's stopper crumbled in the vacuum and spread out over the ice, creating the anomalous readings. Watson and Holmes get the last two lines of dialogue: "But how was the content of our winter's disk made a spurious summary by this scum of cork?" "It was elementally adhered, Watson." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111012/2c70e4a5/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 13 02:59:10 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:59:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:14:25 -0400, wrote: > > Robert Frick asserted -> > > [snip] > But 73D is about tempo and manner, not asking questions. > [snip] > > Law 73D2, first criterion -> > > A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ***remark*** > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> > > remark, n. comment, a thing said > > Robert Frick asserted -> > > Yes, but surely "remark" does not refer to anything a player says. > > Richard Hills -> > > Petitio principii. A remark surely includes each and everything a bridge > player says. Pocket Oxford Dictionary "a thing said". So a bridge > player's > question is a subset of the general category of remark. And declarer's > reflexive question (about the opening lead of a zero-or-two-higher nine) > was a Law 73D2 misleading remark, because declarer knew from cards hidden > in hand that two-higher was not an option. > > Robert Frick asserted -> > > Without bidding boxes, that definition would include calls. Surely we are > allowed to attempt to mislead opponents by calls > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > This is the logical fallacy of the weak analogy. The Law 40A3 "right" to > mislead opponents with a psyche is _not_ an unfettered "right", since it > is > subject to Law 40C1 (which prohibits undisclosed implicit understandings) > and Law 72A (which prohibits frivolous psyching). > > Likewise the Law 20F1 / F2 / F3 "right" to ask questions is fettered by > Law > 20G1, Law 73B1, Law 73D2 and Law 73F. > > Robert Frick asserted -> > > BTW, I got the director called on me once when I made a long explanation > of > what my partners 4 of hearts opening lead could be when in fact I could > tell from my hand that it was a singleton. The director apparently did > not > consider my explanation a remark. > > Richard Hills -> > > Technically the explanation by Bob was a remark. But since the > explanation > was also an accurate description of the pre-existing mutual explicit and > implicit understanding of Bob's partnership, it was _not_ a Law 73D2 > "attempt to mislead" the opponents about the mutual partnership > understanding. The fact that Bob's partner held a singleton when Bob > explained additional possibilities is irrelevant to "attempt to mislead". > > Law 75C, second sentence -> > > Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an > accurate > description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an > accurate > description of the North-South hands. > > Robert Frick asserted -> > > [snip] > Or you could I suppose be right and the lawbook is wrong once again. > > Richard Hills -> > > No, the Lawbook is right once again, but its correct interpretation > sometimes requires simple knowledge. Such as the simple knowledge found > in > the Pocket Oxford Dictionary. This seems too inane to rebut. Anyway, the player was not trying to mislead the opponents, so L73D2 doesn't apply to the given example. Or to players always asking about 9's in order to avoid giving UI. And, L73D2 limits itself to deviations from correct procedure. Asking about the meaning of a call or play is surely not that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 13 03:10:03 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:10:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> References: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:49:29 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/11/2011 11:47 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I think Mike Flader got an answer wrong in the latest ACBL Bridge >> Bulletin. > > I think so, too. > >> (I normally like his answers and think he does a good job.) > > I have a different opinion. > >> The 9 was the opening lead, declarer reflexively asked what 9's mean, > > The actual quote from the letter was, "I reflexively asked right-hand > opponent if they had any special lead agreements." This is quite a > different matter from asking "what 9's mean." Normally, I agree. One of my pet peeves is asking "Is that new minor forcing" or anything like that. In this case I am more sympathetic. The player does not want a dump of all information about the 9. > > {Flader:] >> "Such a question is a violation of the Proprieties, addressed in Laws >> 73D >> and 73F." > > L73F2 is usually the one that's relevant, but 73D2 could matter > sometimes, I suppose. Is L73F2 really relvant? The opponents are going to claim that they used UI and expect sympathy? L73D2 limits itself to "any deviation from correct principle" So to use it, you first have to find some other law that says this is a deviation from correct principle. > >> If declarer asks this question reflexively or as a matter of practice, I >> can't find any violation in 73F. > > It depends on the phrasing of the question. A neutral question asking > about agreements should be OK, but any phrasing that suggests something > about the cards is problematic. That I agree with. I was focusing on Flader's answer, which says that any proper question about the lead is a violation if the declarer already knows the answer and the question could mislead the opponents. > >> I think I can construct two demonstrable bridge reasons for asking. But >> in >> this case those reasons seem to be dwarfed by the fact that the >> information is UI. > > What information is UI? The opponents' agreements?! The fact that declarer asked the question. > >> "Simply put, the laws do not allow you to ask questions to which you >> already know the answers." > > This, of course, is Mr. Flader's own invention, though it wouldn't > surprise me if there are other ACBL directors who believe it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 13 03:51:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:51:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003, item 1 -> [snip] It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be asked. Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced that a question is asked every time there is an alert there can be no unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of asking the question could still create information. It was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying unauthorised information. The Secretary expressed his concern about the potential of questions to mislead opponents and drew attention to the requirement where this is alleged to have happened (and the questioner could have known that asking the question might work to his benefit) to show (Law 73F2 [now the 2007 Law 73F]) that he had a ?demonstrable bridge reason? for asking the question. The Chairman expressed his opinion that Law 73F2 [now the 2007 Law 73F] should only be used in extreme situations when a player asks about the meaning of a call. He thought that normally a desire to know what is happening at the table is a good enough ?bridge reason?. Mr Schoder cited his experience of a case where, in his opinion, it was appropriate to apply that law and, likewise not convinced of the Chairman?s argument, the Secretary maintained his position that the occasion for applying 73F2 [now the 2007 Law 73F] is a matter for the Director and the Appeals Committee to judge. [snip] Robert Frick -> [snip] Anyway, the player was not trying to mislead the opponents, so L73D2 doesn't apply to the given example. Or to players always asking about 9's in order to avoid giving UI. Richard Hills -> "It was also pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every [opening lead] and then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not conveying [deceptive Law 73D2 / Law 73F] information." Robert Frick -> And, L73D2 limits itself to deviations from correct procedure. Richard Hills -> Incorrect parsing of Law 73D2, which concludes with "or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure". The word "or" means that the criterion of purposeful deviations from correct procedure is in addition to the earlier criteria listed in Law 73D2. Law 73E - Deception -> A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). Robert Frick -> Asking about the meaning of a call or play is surely not that. Richard Hills -> If the glove doesn't fit, you _surely_ must acquit??? No. While Law 73E states that "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play", Law 73E does _not_ say "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a _question_". This is commonplace mild ch**t*ng by non-expert declarers. LHO leads an ace. Declarer asks RHO, "With AK do you lead the ace or the king?" Declarer holds the king herself, thus her question encourages LHO to continue the suit at trick two rather than finding a killing switch. 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/20111013/2c3791bd/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 13 09:09:30 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:09:30 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> Hello Paul PL wrote: > [herman de Wael] > And this pair apparently "agreed" to play such a double. Ehh, am I > correct in saying that it is not the double that is illegal, but the > combination of the psyche and the double? In fact, the double is used to > reveal the psyche, and this makes the psyche illegal? > > [Paul Lamford] > I see we are getting the Belgian antipathy towards psyches coming across > strongly in your post. There is no Belgian antipathy against psyches, and if there is, surely I'm not among those who share such an antipathy! Anyway, what is shining through strongly is my antipathy towards the English rulings on psyches - which I believe to be against the law. > No, it is the combination of the agreement to > play a Watson double, the double itself and the psyche which is illegal. > If you play a Watson double, you may not use it if you have psyched. I > think this rule may be illegal too, but that is not the point of this post. > Maybe the wording is illegal, but the sentiment is certainly correct. > The pair did not "agree" to play the double. In fact one of the two had > never heard of it, but guessed its meaning. And what differentce would that make? It quacks like a duck ... > On your basis, you would > argue that someone who overcalls with a strong NT with xx xx xx Jxxxxxx > and then passes Stayman is using Stayman to reveal the psyche. Yes, indeed. The situation is entirely similar to the one you are describing, up until one point: the EBU has ruled that using Watson to reveal a psyche is illegal - they have not ruled the same over Stayman. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. But the principle is indeed the same. > That must > therefore be illegal by your thinking. Since time immemorial players > have used passes of forcing bids to reveal a psyche. This is is only > illegal if the primary purpose of the forcing bid is to control the > psyche. Why should the primary purpose of the bid have anything to do with it? The primary purpose of Stayman is to discover major fits, OK - but it is there. And psyching when you know that Stayman is there to possibly aid you is less dangerous than psyching when Stayman would not be there. I myself refuse to play Drury, because I know that if I psyche with Drury in place, my risk is less than if I make the same psyche without Drury. Personally, I believe that the third hand psyche, combined with Drury, has too little risk to be acceptable. (This is just my personal opinion and should not be debated here). > I have opened a game-forcing 2C with a weak two in diamonds > before now - twice in 11 years with different partners. The forced Two > Diamond response is not a psyche control. Of course it is. > The agreement is that it is a forced puppet. Yes, but you are also using it to limit the risk of your psyche. About fifteen years ago, I played regularly with partner X. We changed the meaning of 2NT and 2Cl in our system, playing 2Cl as 20-21 and a 2H/S response as very weak (allowing us to play the major contract one level lower than the field). Then I moced to partner Y. We added a weak two in diamonds to our 2Cl opening, and left the weak 2H/S response, creating a 2D forced puppet. Two years ago, player X started playing again and we played a few tournaments. We initially picked up our old system, with 2Cl always being strong, but of course also with the very common 2D response. And then I though, what if I psyche a 2Cl with a weak 2D hand? How could I have made believe to a TD that I'm not just playing the system of player Y with player X, have told X, and he forgot? And now I invent the psyche story to cover up the MI? Rather than having to believe the players as honest, I prefer to rule this as a systemic 2Cl opening, with MI. The opponents are entitled to the full system, and this includes the forced 2D-puppet. From that information, they can deduce that it is almost risk-free to open 2Cl on a hand with diamonds, and hence this is systemic. I don't burden the opponents with working this out - I put that burden on the pair who do it. That is the kind of story that the EBU have done with the Watson double. If you play the Watson double, you are not allowed to psyche an opening and then use the double to cover up one of the risks. Translated into: you are not allowed to watson-double if you have psyched previously. OK? -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 09:14:01 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:14:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Veldhoven World Championships In-Reply-To: <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> I'm there for the transnationals (as TD, not player), anybody else on this list planning to be there? 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 13 09:19:28 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:19:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Veldhoven World Championships In-Reply-To: <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E969100.9010104@skynet.be> I am, on the AC (as scribe) Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > I'm there for the transnationals (as TD, not player), anybody else on this > list planning to be there? > > Henk > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 13 09:38:24 2011 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:38:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Veldhoven World Championships In-Reply-To: <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001701cc897b$175ceb50$4616c1f0$@nl> I am the IT manager, been here for two days already Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal Sent: donderdag 13 oktober 2011 9:14 To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: [BLML] Veldhoven World Championships I'm there for the transnationals (as TD, not player), anybody else on this list planning to be there? 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) _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Oct 13 09:43:40 2011 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:43:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Veldhoven World Championships In-Reply-To: <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E9696AC.1000707@t-online.de> Am 13.10.2011 09:14, schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: > > I'm there for the transnationals (as TD, not player), anybody else on this > list planning to be there? > > Henk > My plan is to come for a day or two, probably on the first Tuesday, maybe in the second week, too. Best regards Matthias From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 10:54:07 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:54:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E96A72F.6090907@gmail.com> On 10/12/2011 09:51 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 9th November 2003, item 1 -> > > [snip] > It was agreed by all present that the laws allow a question to be > asked. Members present offered a wide variety of opinion on the > subject generally. Two members stated that if it is announced that a > question is asked every time there is an alert there can be no > unauthorised information to partner, but allowed that the manner of > asking the question could still create information. It was also > pointed out that a player who said he would ask about every alert and > then failed to do so from time to time defeated his object of not > conveying unauthorised information. > The answer to this one is simple. If a pair wishes to always ask about alerts, then allow an option for a pair to ask their opponents at the start of a round/match/whatever to explain every alert *without* being asked. No possibility of UI from the manner of asking, no possibility of UI from "forgetting" to ask. Brian. From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 13 14:25:44 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:25:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> On 12/10/2011 16:37, Steve Willner wrote: > The question is whether the true agreement about 1NT is "strong > balanced" or instead "either strong balanced or weak with clubs." If > the latter, is it a legal agreement, and was it properly disclosed? The > ruling could go either way, I think, depending on partnership history. You are told that someone overcalled with a strong NT. You can assume that the true agreement was that the overcall showed a strong NT, or you would have been told differently. In the Wonderful World of Willner, if someone opens One Spade with a low doubleton, when it systemically shows five, the question is whether the true agreement is that One Spade shows either an opening bid with five spades or less than an opening bid with two spades. This is because in Willnerland, the translation of the Laws has a typo, in that it says in 40C1: One deviation leads to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111013/254dcb11/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 13 16:12:10 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:12:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> Paul, you are deliberately misunderstanding. PL wrote: > On 12/10/2011 16:37, Steve Willner wrote: >> The question is whether the true agreement about 1NT is "strong >> balanced" or instead "either strong balanced or weak with clubs." If >> the latter, is it a legal agreement, and was it properly disclosed? The >> ruling could go either way, I think, depending on partnership history. > You are told that someone overcalled with a strong NT. You can assume > that the true agreement was that the overcall showed a strong NT, or you > would have been told differently. > > In the Wonderful World of Willner, if someone opens One Spade with a low > doubleton, when it systemically shows five, the question is whether the > true agreement is that One Spade shows either an opening bid with five > spades or less than an opening bid with two spades. This is because in > Willnerland, the translation of the Laws has a typo, in that it says in > 40C1: One deviation leads to implicit understandings which then form > part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance > with the regulations governing disclosure of system. > The problem with your assumption that someone has made one deviation is that it is, quite often, not true. Every player has only one opportunity to make the first psyche of his career. Even though a vast majority of players may never have psyched before, the vast majority of players who will psyche tomorrow will have done so before. In all those cases, there is "some knowledge" about psyching tendencies, even if it is just "he has done that twice before in the past 11 years" (as in your example). I firmly believe that this knowledge is information to which the opponents are entitled, even when the partner does not actually know it - a negative fact is impossible to prove, after all. That is what Steve was referring to. The TD should investigate in how far the information that the opponents are entitled to (and did not receive, obviously) is sufficient for them to make us of. That is a MI ruling, even if it will quite often be "no consequent damage". Herman. > > ** > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1522/3948 - Release Date: 10/12/11 > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 13 16:17:51 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:17:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3AE0CABC-A68F-48BF-B90E-5E247C4401F6@starpower.net> On Oct 11, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > I think Mike Flader got an answer wrong in the latest ACBL Bridge > Bulletin. (I normally like his answers and think he does a good job.) > > The 9 was the opening lead, declarer reflexively asked what 9's > mean, and > got an answer. It turns out he had AJx opposite K10x and could > figure out > what it was and didn't need to know anyway. > > Mike said > > "Such a question is a violation of the Proprieties, addressed in > Laws 73D > and 73F." > > But 73D is about tempo and manner, not asking questions. And.. > "Inferences > from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent > and at > his own risk." But the opponents are not allowed to draw inferences > from a > question, right? > > If declarer asks this question reflexively or as a matter of > practice, I > can't find any violation in 73F. > > He continues, > > "To paraphrase, if an innocent player draws a false inference from > your > question, for which you have no demonstrable bridge reason for > asking, and > when you could have known that your question could work to your > benefit, > the director shall assign an adjusted score." > > I think I can construct two demonstrable bridge reasons for asking. > But in > this case those reasons seem to be dwarfed by the fact that the > information is UI. > > "Simply put, the laws do not allow you to ask questions to which you > already know the answers." > > This might be a good principle. But this isn't in the laws, right? > > Analogously, I can sort my hand any way I want, and I do intentionally > mis-sort my hand and essentially my only reason is to deceive any > opponent > who might try to draw an inference from the way my hand is sorted. But > this has to be legal, right? You are declarer. LHO leads an ace at trick one. You ask RHO whether they lead ace from AK. You hold the king. In your analysis of the hand, you saw that you had two reasonable approaches to the play. One is slightly preferable double-dummy, but the other looks much better if there is a significant probability that RHO, when given the lead, will return the led suit, playing his partner for the king. So you clearly have a "demonstrble bridge reason" [L73F] for wanting to know. On the other hand, you are an ethical player, and fully aware that by asking the question and getting a positive answer, you are likely to create a misimpression in RHO's mind that will significantly increase the likelihood of his playing his partner for the king. So you have not only asked a question that is likely to cause "an innocent player [to draw] a false inference", but have done so knowingly. That's something ethical players just don't do, whether or not thay can cite the specific law that it would violate. I resolve this dilemma by noting that L73F does not depend on whether you have a demonstrable bridge reason for wanting to know the answer to your question, but rather whether you have "a demonstable bridge reason for the action". Here "the action" is asking the question. A "demonstrable bridge reason" for asking a potentially deceptive question requires both a demonstable bridge reason for wanting the answer and an inability to get it without doing so. With my TD hat on, I will rule deliberate deception if your opponents had their convention card readily available (as required by regulation) and you could have answered your question by examining it (being ethical, of course, you would not make an obvious show of consulting only the opening leads section), thus properly avoiding (or at least minimizing) the likelihood of deceiving anyone. If you ask only after checking the CC and finding the information not there (or if there was no "readily available" CC on the table), I will gently explain to your opponents that they were misled by virtue of their own irregularity; next time they should have their CC fully filled out and available. As to Mr. Flader, one might recall the numerous occasions in which I have chastised the ACBL in this forum for its repeated (and IMO ridiculous) assertion that Mr. Flader's views, despite his being an offical of the ACBL writing for the official publication of the ACBL (with no disclaimer) are not to be taken as official. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 13 16:40:01 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E96F841.6020306@ulb.ac.be> Le 13/10/2011 9:09, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Yes, indeed. > The situation is entirely similar to the one you are describing, up > until one point: the EBU has ruled that using Watson to reveal a psyche > is illegal AG : it that was the ruling, it would simply be void : the double doesn't reveal the psyche, it disallows partenr to lead hearts. Nothing can reveal a psyche, or it wouldn't be a psyche anymore. The ruling was that one can't make a psyche followed by a double which conventionally disallows the lead. This is different in spirit. >> I have opened a game-forcing 2C with a weak two in diamonds >> before now - twice in 11 years with different partners. The forced Two >> Diamond response is not a psyche control. > Of course it is. AG : as any convention, a "psyche control" has to be (at least implicitly) agreed upon to exist. Here, it is not the case. > >> The agreement is that it is a forced puppet. > Yes, but you are also using it to limit the risk of your psyche. > > About fifteen years ago, I played regularly with partner X. We changed > the meaning of 2NT and 2Cl in our system, playing 2Cl as 20-21 and a > 2H/S response as very weak (allowing us to play the major contract one > level lower than the field). Then I moced to partner Y. We added a weak > two in diamonds to our 2Cl opening, and left the weak 2H/S response, > creating a 2D forced puppet. Two years ago, player X started playing > again and we played a few tournaments. We initially picked up our old > system, with 2Cl always being strong, but of course also with the very > common 2D response. > And then I though, what if I psyche a 2Cl with a weak 2D hand? > How could I have made believe to a TD that I'm not just playing the > system of player Y with player X, have told X, and he forgot? And now I > invent the psyche story to cover up the MI? > Rather than having to believe the players as honest, I prefer to rule > this as a systemic 2Cl opening, with MI. The opponents are entitled to > the full system, and this includes the forced 2D-puppet. From that > information, they can deduce that it is almost risk-free to open 2Cl on > a hand with diamonds, and hence this is systemic. I don't burden the > opponents with working this out - I put that burden on the pair who do it. > That is the kind of story that the EBU have done with the Watson double. > If you play the Watson double, you are not allowed to psyche an opening > and then use the double to cover up one of the risks. Translated into: > you are not allowed to watson-double if you have psyched previously. > > AG : I don't agree. Under the same reasoning, you'd have to disallow a 1S psych because partner, with hearts and a strong hand, will answer 2H before bidding 4H, and this reduces the risks (also notice the forcing 1NT response with a flat 13-15). Any psyche has its favorable cases... or there wouldn't be any. Best regards Alain From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 13 16:41:19 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:41:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> On 13/10/2011 15:12, Herman De Wael wrote: > Every player has only one opportunity to make the first psyche of his career. [paul lamford] Law 40C1 actually says: **Repeated** deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. (my emphasis) We therefore have to decide what is meant by repeated variations. In my opinion there would be a requirement for a particular type of psyche to have occurred at least twice, and probably three times, before it leads to implicit understandings. The one psyche I can ever recall making more than twice is the standard 2D(weak) - [Double] - 2S (fit). The third time this occurred, and this time I did have spades, my partner alerted it (as required anyway) and indicated it had been psyched twice before. So you and Steve are wrong in law until there has been "repeated deviations", and I am not misunderstanding you. I just don't agree. But then when did anyone ever agree about psyches? From gampas at aol.com Thu Oct 13 16:47:53 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:47:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E96F841.6020306@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E968EAA.3090703@skynet.be> <4E96F841.6020306@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E96FA19.2080103@aol.com> On 13/10/2011 15:40, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > The ruling was that one can't make a psyche followed by a double which > conventionally disallows the lead. This is different in spirit. The actual ruling in the club was that there was no implicit agreement, as the players had never met before, and that the absolute right conferred upon someone by 40A3 could not be taken away. The RA is only empowered to regulate agreements, not bids: 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). The score was unchanged. The victims chuntered on for a while but did not appeal. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 13 16:53:31 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:53:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00694B1F-2711-41F4-83F8-1D1318487BB5@starpower.net> On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > This seems too inane to rebut. Anyway, the player was not trying to > mislead the opponents, so L73D2 doesn't apply to the given example. > Or to > players always asking about 9's in order to avoid giving UI. Avoid giving UI? Isn't this thread about declarer asking RHO about LHO's opening lead? What am I missing? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 13 17:13:44 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:13:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> Message-ID: <3304CF66-62C2-40C4-A04D-784E53E1888A@starpower.net> On Oct 13, 2011, at 8:25 AM, PL wrote: > On 12/10/2011 16:37, Steve Willner wrote: > >> The question is whether the true agreement about 1NT is "strong >> balanced" or instead "either strong balanced or weak with clubs." >> If the latter, is it a legal agreement, and was it properly >> disclosed? The ruling could go either way, I think, depending on >> partnership history. > > You are told that someone overcalled with a strong NT. You can > assume that the true agreement was that the overcall showed a > strong NT, or you would have been told differently. > > In the Wonderful World of Willner, if someone opens One Spade with > a low doubleton, when it systemically shows five, the question is > whether the true agreement is that One Spade shows either an > opening bid with five spades or less than an opening bid with two > spades. This is because in Willnerland, the translation of the Laws > has a typo, in that it says in 40C1: One deviation leads to > implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's > methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations > governing disclosure of system. That's rather unfair to Steve, who is merely reflecting the reality of bridge in ACBLland. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Oct 13 17:27:53 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:27:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4E970379.6040205@comcast.net> On 10/13/11 10:12 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Paul, you are deliberately misunderstanding. > > PL wrote: >> On 12/10/2011 16:37, Steve Willner wrote: >>> The question is whether the true agreement about 1NT is "strong >>> balanced" or instead "either strong balanced or weak with clubs." If >>> the latter, is it a legal agreement, and was it properly disclosed? The >>> ruling could go either way, I think, depending on partnership history. >> You are told that someone overcalled with a strong NT. You can assume >> that the true agreement was that the overcall showed a strong NT, or you >> would have been told differently. >> >> In the Wonderful World of Willner, if someone opens One Spade with a low >> doubleton, when it systemically shows five, the question is whether the >> true agreement is that One Spade shows either an opening bid with five >> spades or less than an opening bid with two spades. This is because in >> Willnerland, the translation of the Laws has a typo, in that it says in >> 40C1: One deviation leads to implicit understandings which then form >> part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance >> with the regulations governing disclosure of system. >> > The problem with your assumption that someone has made one deviation is > that it is, quite often, not true. Every player has only one opportunity > to make the first psyche of his career. Even though a vast majority of > players may never have psyched before, the vast majority of players who > will psyche tomorrow will have done so before. In all those cases, there > is "some knowledge" about psyching tendencies, even if it is just "he > has done that twice before in the past 11 years" (as in your example). I > firmly believe that this knowledge is information to which the opponents > are entitled, even when the partner does not actually know it - a > negative fact is impossible to prove, after all. > > That is what Steve was referring to. The TD should investigate in how > far the information that the opponents are entitled to (and did not > receive, obviously) is sufficient for them to make us of. That is a MI > ruling, even if it will quite often be "no consequent damage". > > Herman. > Does not alerting opponents to partner's occasional psychs do more harm than good? It easily leads opponents (to their detriment) into allowing for a psych when none exists. If we follow the principle Herman outlines, could one not turn this alerting into a useful weapon, all in accordance with the laws? What would you think of me if I were to do that? Perhaps it's time to bring back the "occasion psychs" check box on the systems card, and leave it at that. --Bob Park From mikopera at nyc.rr.com Thu Oct 13 18:58:36 2011 From: mikopera at nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:58:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: <00694B1F-2711-41F4-83F8-1D1318487BB5@starpower.net> References: <00694B1F-2711-41F4-83F8-1D1318487BB5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4E9718BC.4030701@nyc.rr.com> My guess is he's talking about giving RHO information. Why should RHO know that you can tell what the lead is from your hand because you don't ask about the lead? The next thing to happen is that RHO will ask for redress for misleading him if you don't ask when you can't tell :) On 10/13/2011 10:53 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> This seems too inane to rebut. Anyway, the player was not trying to >> mislead the opponents, so L73D2 doesn't apply to the given example. >> Or to >> players always asking about 9's in order to avoid giving UI. > > Avoid giving UI? Isn't this thread about declarer asking RHO about > LHO's opening lead? What am I missing? > > > 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 > -- Mike Kopera We cannot solve problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. From adam at irvine.com Thu Oct 13 19:16:23 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:16:23 -0700 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:17:51 EDT." <3AE0CABC-A68F-48BF-B90E-5E247C4401F6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <20111013171625.D56BCA8C85A@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > With my TD hat on, I will rule deliberate deception if your opponents > had their convention card readily available (as required by > regulation) and you could have answered your question by examining it > (being ethical, of course, you would not make an obvious show of > consulting only the opening leads section), thus properly avoiding > (or at least minimizing) the likelihood of deceiving anyone. If you > ask only after checking the CC and finding the information not there > (or if there was no "readily available" CC on the table), I will > gently explain to your opponents that they were misled by virtue of > their own irregularity; next time they should have their CC fully > filled out and available. That's exactly the approach I've begun to take. If I'm declarer, I've made it a routine to ask for their CC and look over the carding section. By the way, I wrote an e-mail letter to the editor of the Bulletin after reading Flader's response. I posted a copy of my letter on rec.games.bridge, which started a rather lengthy discussion (look for the thread "Copy of e-mail to Bulletin" if you're interested). My e-mail did mention that I've started using the CC and expect that I will not be ruled against if I ask a question because the CC is not filled out properly. Others in the thread have also sent letters, and Kurt Schneider had several back-and-forths that he reported on. A lot of the discussion has been around what the form of the question should be in order to avoid a ruling that you've misled the opponents. But one of Brent Manley's responses to Kurt seems to indicate that the form actually used in the original letter, "Do you have any special lead agreements", should not pose any problems, which means that Flader seems to have been wrong on at least one point. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 13 20:51:38 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:51:38 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E970379.6040205@comcast.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E970379.6040205@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Robert Park wrote: > Does not alerting opponents to partner's occasional psychs do more > harm > than good? It easily leads opponents (to their detriment) into > allowing > for a psych when none exists. > > If we follow the principle Herman outlines, could one not turn this > alerting into a useful weapon, all in accordance with the laws? What > would you think of me if I were to do that? Many moons ago, when the ACBL alert procedure had only recently been introduced and the ACBL's campaign to stamp out psychs had not yet begun, one of my partners and I played a variation of Roth-Stone controlled psychs, in which an opening bid of one of a suit was made on either a sound (a la Roth-Stone) opening bid or a balanced hand with specifically 3-5 HCP and a holding of three or four cards to at least the king in the bid suit. Our CC declared our psychs (via checkboxes) as both "frequent" and "systemic". We alerted when a psych was revealed by passing a forcing call (in those days, even naive opponents would recognize that we has psyched; the alert was to inform them as to what our psychs, by agreement, looked like). We also alerted whenever we had a potential "control" sequence (e.g. on a jump shift by responder, we would alert and describe a game-forcing slam try opposite a full opener, with a willingness to play there opposite the 3-5 hand). This worked out reasonably well, and our opponents had little trouble understanding what we were doing. Then one day the director at one local club decided that we should alert our suit opening bids, offering our opponents a full explanation of the possibility that it might be a psych (that's what everyone called it in those days, notwithstanding that today we would recognize the misnomer). We opined that this might not be as good an idea as it sounded, but we agreed to try it. The psychological impact was far more devastating than we ever could have imagined. Any time an opponent held a halfway decent hand they would just assume we had psyched. And most of the time when they didn't, they still bid more agressively than they should have, because they figured we just might have psyched. It apparently occurred to nobody that sound opening bids are dealt an order of magnitude or two more frequently than R-S controlled-psych hands. I was as though despite our offering a clear and accurate description of our opening bids, the only thing that registered was "3-5 HCP". We wound up setting the club record for its highest percentage game ever. And the same director wisely forbade us from alerting our opening bids ever again. > Perhaps it's time to bring back the "occasion psychs" check box on the > systems card, and leave it at that. The ACBL used to require partnerships to characterize their psyching tendencies/agreements by checking one of four boxes on the CC, which were labeled "frequent", "occasional", "rare" and "never". This section of the CC was expunged sometime around the mid 1970s, as it would have undermined the Don-Oakie-led campaign by the ACBL to convince its players that "never" was the only legal, or, at least, only ethical, option. Which succeeded so well that in today's ACBL, if you even try to inform your opponents that you psych frequently, or occasionally, or even rarely (never, presumably, may be assumed), you will be held to have a partnership understanding with respect to psychs, which is prima facie illegal. IMO, the ACBL has done nothing less than make proper, ethical full disclosure impossible in the interest of stamping out psychs as close to entirely as the Law can be stretched to. In their opinion, we wouldn't have anything to worry about it if we just got the message that we simply shouldn't ever be psyching in the first place. If they cared more about disclosure than about dictating how one ought to bid, they would restore the checkboxes, and let those of us who do legally psych on occasion fulfill our ethical obligation to share all that we know of our partnership understandings with our opponents. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 13 23:22:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:22:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20111013171625.D56BCA8C85A@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Law 41A - Face-down Opening Lead -> ... the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down ... Adam Beneschan -> [snip] "Do you have any special lead agreements", should not pose any problems, which means that Flader seems to have been wrong on at least one point. Richard Hills -> Yes and no. Edgar Kaplan observed that declarer asking, "Do you have any special lead agreements?" is appropriately done when the opening lead is still face down (in my opinion even more appropriate is a pre-Alert at the start of the round or match). Edgar Kaplan noted that any question by declarer about opening leads once the opening lead has been faced is inherently problematic. I agree with Edgar, as once the opening lead has been faced it is difficult for a questioning declarer to steer between the Scylla of a Law 73F deceptive infraction and the Charybdis of giving unnecessary AI to the defenders. Pocket Oxford Dictionary -> Scylla & Charybdis, n. two perils or extremes of which it is hard to avoid one without running into the other. [Homer, Odyssey xii] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111013/98a53ce8/attachment.html From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Oct 13 23:42:06 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:42:06 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> Hello Paul, I quite understand what you are saying, and you do have a point. But so have I. I have never, ever, done the H1H a second time with the same partner. So am I in the clear? Any of my future partners could know about this psyche. And so my opponents should know about it. Basically, what you are saying is that it's OK to psyche once, and twice, but not the third time. How is that stance so much different from mine, which says that it's OK to psyche just once? (and not even that) Please understand what it is I'm saying: it's OK to psyche - regardles of whether partner knows about it or not - provided the opponents are given (afterwards if not before) the information that could be available on the psyche. That information includes previous occurences, frequency, and methods that are used to limit the risk of the psyche. And no, I don't believe there is anything wrong with opponents not knowing these facts beforehand. Just like with any misexplanation, we give them the information afterwards and decide how likely it is they would have done something different if they ahd known. Herman. PL wrote: > On 13/10/2011 15:12, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Every player has only one opportunity to make the first psyche of his career. > [paul lamford] > Law 40C1 actually says: **Repeated** deviations lead to implicit > understandings which then form part of the partnership?s methods and > must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing > disclosure of system. (my emphasis) > > We therefore have to decide what is meant by repeated variations. In my > opinion there would be a requirement for a particular type of psyche to > have occurred at least twice, and probably three times, before it leads > to implicit understandings. The one psyche I can ever recall making more > than twice is the standard 2D(weak) - [Double] - 2S (fit). > > The third time this occurred, and this time I did have spades, my > partner alerted it (as required anyway) and indicated it had been > psyched twice before. > > So you and Steve are wrong in law until there has been "repeated > deviations", and I am not misunderstanding you. I just don't agree. But > then when did anyone ever agree about psyches? > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1522/3948 - Release Date: 10/12/11 > > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 14 01:25:36 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:25:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra (was Veldhoven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E968FB9.1090603@gmail.com> Message-ID: I will be at the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra for almost everything (as a Canberra player, not TD), anybody else on this list planning to be there? When the WBF Laws Committee Veldhoven minutes are officially published I will read them with interest, then publish my consequent inane analysis on blml. 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/20111013/bafd67ce/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 14 01:36:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:36:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:22:28 -0400, wrote: > > Law 41A - Face-down Opening Lead -> > > ... the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face > down ... > > Adam Beneschan -> > > [snip] > "Do you have any special lead agreements", should not pose any problems, > which means that Flader seems to have been wrong on at least one point. > > Richard Hills -> > > Yes and no. > > Edgar Kaplan observed that declarer asking, "Do you have any special lead > agreements?" is appropriately done when the opening lead is still face > down > (in my opinion even more appropriate is a pre-Alert at the start of the > round or match). Edgar Kaplan noted that any question by declarer about > opening leads once the opening lead has been faced is inherently > problematic. I agree with Edgar, as once the opening lead has been faced > it > is difficult for a questioning declarer to steer between the Scylla of a > Law 73F deceptive infraction and the Charybdis of giving unnecessary AI > to > the defenders. You seem to be saying, here and elsewhere, that declarer's question is AI to the defenders. Do you really want to say that? From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 14 02:00:34 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:00:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: References: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E977BA2.30006@nhcc.net> On 10/12/2011 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > In this case I am more sympathetic. The player does not want a dump of all > information about the 9. Regardless of what the player wants, he mustn't mislead an opponent in the process of getting it. It isn't hard. >> What information is UI? The opponents' agreements?! > > The fact that declarer asked the question. Why do you think that is UI? That has to be one of the most bizarre ideas I've seen on this list. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 14 02:15:45 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:15:45 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: <4E977BA2.30006@nhcc.net> References: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> <4E977BA2.30006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:00:34 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/12/2011 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> In this case I am more sympathetic. The player does not want a dump of >> all >> information about the 9. > > Regardless of what the player wants, he mustn't mislead an opponent in > the process of getting it. It isn't hard. > >>> What information is UI? The opponents' agreements?! >> >> The fact that declarer asked the question. > > Why do you think that is UI? That has to be one of the most bizarre > ideas I've seen on this list. I always assumed that if a player asks me a question about my bids, and that wakes me up to the fact that I have misbid, that I am not allowed to use the information. Not true? From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 14 02:21:37 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:21:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E95BEBE.40401@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E95BEBE.40401@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E978091.8050700@nhcc.net> [The following seems to have gone only to Alain, not to the whole list. Apologies if I'm wrong.] On 10/12/2011 12:22 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > The confusion comes from history : there was a school who advocated > opening on weak (typically 3-6 HCP) hands, albeit naturally and with > specific criteria about where the points are. They called them psyches, > because at this time those openings were called psyches. Yes. I'm most familiar with the Kaplan-Sheinwold version, but there may have been (or still be) others. This is what I'm calling the "popular" definition of psych. With this definition, "psych control" indeed has a meaning, and both the psych and the control are part of the system. The contradiction comes when you try to extend "psych control" to the _legal_ definition of "psych." That definition is "(intentional) departure from system." But if you have methods in place to deal with, say, an ultra-light opening, then such an opening is (legally) not a departure at all, it's part of the system. Most players would probably still call it "a psych" on the basis of the popular definition, but by the legal definition, it isn't a psych. I'm sure this would all be clearer if we used a different word for "departure from system" than we do for "ultra-light or misleading action." I'd be happy with "misbid" for the former; if you think about "misbid controls," I think you'll get my point about "psych controls." (Yes, there are entertaining stories of pairs devising "misbid controls," but I hope the main point is clear.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 14 02:23:00 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:23:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Reg asked -> I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box? Robert asked -> You seem to be saying, here and elsewhere, that declarer's question is AI to the defenders. Do you really want to say that? Richard answered -> Yes, Yes, Yes (and Yes). Declarer's question is AI to both defenders due to Law 16A1(c). But the answer by one defender is UI to the other defender due to Law 16B1. Law 16A1(c) specifically states that it is subordinate to Law 16B1. Of course, one defender's answer to declarer only causes logical alternative problems for the other defender if the answer "makes available ... extraneous information". Thus for those defenders who have mostly excellent memories and almost comprehensive methods usually zero extraneous information will be created. 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/20111014/3fbd67df/attachment.html From adam at irvine.com Fri Oct 14 02:24:25 2011 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:24:25 -0700 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:15:45 EDT." Message-ID: <20111014002430.47DE5A8C85A@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:00:34 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > > > On 10/12/2011 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> In this case I am more sympathetic. The player does not want a dump of > >> all > >> information about the 9. > > > > Regardless of what the player wants, he mustn't mislead an opponent in > > the process of getting it. It isn't hard. > > > >>> What information is UI? The opponents' agreements?! > >> > >> The fact that declarer asked the question. > > > > Why do you think that is UI? That has to be one of the most bizarre > > ideas I've seen on this list. > > I always assumed that if a player asks me a question about my bids, and > that wakes me up to the fact that I have misbid, that I am not allowed to > use the information. Not true? Whether or not that's true, you are *definitely* allowed to use the fact that declarer has asked you a question and draw inferences about declarer's hand (but at your own risk). It may be possible that you're not allowed to wake up to the fact that you've misbid (I'm not clear on this, when the information comes from declarer and not partner). But even if that's so, that doesn't make declarer's questions 100% UI in all respects. It may not be a black-and-white "either it's UI or it isn't" situation. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 14 03:05:06 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:05:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E978091.8050700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Steve Willner, 14th October 2011 -> [snip] I'm sure this would all be clearer if we used a different word for "departure from system" than we do for "ultra-light or misleading action." [snip] Eric Landau, 13th May 2005 -> I think the word Nigel is looking for is the one he used initially, "deviation". Nigel's three orthogonal criteria give eight possible combinations. Allow me to offer a table of appropriate terminology: Gross?.....Deliberate?....Agreement?....What is it? No.........No.............No............Misbid No.........No.............Yes...........Misinformation No.........Yes............No............Judgment No.........Yes............Yes...........CPU Yes........No.............No............Misbid Yes........No.............Yes...........Misinformation Yes........Yes............No............Psych Yes........Yes............Yes...........Cheating That's six possibilities for the eight combinations and, whether Nigel likes it or not, the laws do not allow us to treat them all alike. Sherlock Holmes -> "Amberley excelled at chess -- one mark, Watson, of a scheming mind." Kind regards, Richard Hills, former chess champion of Tasmania and Canberra -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111014/ff47a78c/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Oct 14 03:41:39 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:41:39 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E979353.5020405@nhcc.net> On 10/13/2011 8:25 AM, PL wrote: > In the Wonderful World of Willner, if someone opens One Spade with a low > doubleton, when it systemically shows five, the question is whether the > true agreement is that One Spade shows either an opening bid with five > spades or less than an opening bid with two spades. Perhaps I confused the issue by writing "true agreement" rather than "true understanding." Yes, the above is the question (or one of them), but in the case of the 1S bid, the answer will very likely be obvious. Of course if responder has 12 points, four spades, and doesn't force to game in spades, we may reach a different obvious conclusion. > This is because in > Willnerland, the translation of the Laws has a typo, in that it says in > 40C1: Nothing to do with 40C1. Discussion and experience are two ways an understanding can be reached, but there is at least one more: implications of other agreements. If we agree "weak NT" and nothing else, then even on the first board we ever play together, we have an implicit understanding that 1m-1M-1NT does not show a minimum, balanced hand. (There are at least a couple of possibilities for what it does show.) This agreement would be alertable in the ACBL. Does anyone disagree so far? A more practical example is that we agree "1NT forcing, 1M-1NT-2m shows three cards in m, 1H-1NT-2H shows six H, and 1H-1NT-2S shows extra values." So then opener gets dealt a 4522 minimum, opens 1H, and sees 1NT. So he bids, say, 2C; so far so good. But later when the opponents ask for an explanation, they are told 2C shows three cards. The ruling here is a little trickier, but this is probably MI. Most likely the true understanding is "three cards or 4522 exactly." The point is that the opponents are at the very least entitled to know that 4522 has never been discussed, and the assurance of 3 clubs was misleading. Now we come to your 2C bid, which you tell opponents is strong and forcing. If the opponents know that 2D is an automatic response, or even a very likely one, they can form their own opinion of how likely it is that you hold a weak hand with diamonds. (The can also ask about partnership experience.) But without knowing that, they have no way to suspect the possibility. I'd call that MI. In addition, 2C either strong or weak with diamonds is illegal in most ACBL events (silly rule, but there it is), and it makes no sense to let people bypass the rule by claiming that 2C was a psych. (Some will see an analogy to "could have known" rules.) Your system explicitly caters to the weak hand with diamonds, and it seems easy to rule that the bid is part of the system. If instead you were playing a different system over 2C, say with transfer responses and a 2S negative, and _then_ you want to psych 2C with long diamonds, that's a different matter. (Well, don't do it in the ACBL, but that's for a different reason.) Here your system doesn't cater to the psych, and it's unreasonable to rule that it is part of your understandings unless there's other evidence. This is analogous to the 1S example above. The question is whether the system caters to the hand type or not. If the system followup caters to a specific hand type, it seems automatic to rule that that hand type is part of the understanding. If you remember, by the way, I agreed with you on the original case. In that example, there was no particular evidence that the system catered to the purported psych. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 14 05:33:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:33:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E979353.5020405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Sherlock Holmes -> "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Steve Willner, October 2011 theory -> [snip] If we agree "weak NT" and nothing else, then even on the first board we ever play together, we have an implicit understanding that 1m-1M-1NT does not show a minimum, balanced hand. [snip] Steve Willner, August 2004 theory -> [snip] For example, if we agree to play a certain range for 1NT, other openings deny a balanced hand in that range, even without explicit discussion. [snip] Richard Hills, August 2004 data -> Naaah. Steve has led a sheltered life. I suggest that he reads Mike Lawrence's first book (of many books), "Judgement At Bridge". In it, Lawrence related how a LOL adopted the old-fashioned advice of Charles Goren, "Don't open a balanced 16-18 1NT with a worthless doubleton!" Since the LOL held 16-18 balanced with a worthless doubleton in clubs, she was compelled by her Gorenish system to open 1C instead! :-) Richard Hills, October 2011 data -> Even if Steve modifies his hypothesis from "if we agree" to "if non-LOL experts agree", then Steve has still led a sheltered life. The EBU expert and bidding theorist Eric Crowhurst recommended opening 1NT with 12-14 balanced and rebidding 1NT with 12-16 balanced. Hence Eric designed the eponymous Crowhurst Convention, a form of checkback. 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/20111014/d0a86ecd/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 14 06:43:09 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:43:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20111014002430.47DE5A8C85A@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan -> Whether or not that's true, you are *definitely* allowed to use the fact that declarer has asked you a question and draw inferences about declarer's hand (but at your own risk). Richard Hills -> Usually at the defender's own risk. But if a declarer "has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score", Law 73F. Adam Beneschan -> It may be possible that you're not allowed to wake up to the fact that you've misbid (I'm not clear on this, when the information comes from declarer and not partner). Richard Hills -> Law 75A clearly states that partner may not assist in waking up. Adam Beneschan -> But even if that's so, that doesn't make declarer's questions 100% UI in all respects. It may not be a black-and-white "either it's UI or it isn't" situation. Richard Hills -> I vote for declarer's questions being 100% Authorised Information to the defenders in all circumstances, since Law 16A1(c) and Law 40C3(a) are merely apparently paradoxical. Law 40C3(a) commences "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority...", thus clearly designating Law 16A1(c) as the superior Law of the two. 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/20111014/d547d173/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 14 08:23:15 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:23:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B93E04228BE444DBD78FD6D44A1104A@G3> [Eric Landau, 13th May 2005] I think the word Nigel is looking for is the one he used initially, "deviation". Nigel's three orthogonal criteria give eight possible combinations. Allow me to offer a table of appropriate terminology: Gross?.....Deliberate?....Agreement?....What is it? That's six possibilities for the eight combinations and, whether Nigel likes it or not, the laws do not allow us to treat them all alike. No.........No.............No............Misbid No.........No.............Yes...........Misinformation No.........Yes............No............Judgment No.........Yes............Yes...........CPU Yes........No.............No............Misbid Yes........No.............Yes...........Misinformation Yes........Yes............No............Psych Yes........Yes............Yes...........Cheating IMO: - The laws of Bridge are wrong to distinguish *deviation* from *psych* (gross deviation) because the main result is an opportunity to rationalise for players and another judgement problem for directors. The other criteria aren't clear-cut either. For example "deliberate" is ambiguous. For example... The bid is "not a mechanical error"; or the bid is "not a result of forgetting the system"; and so on. - Thus, it is not cheating if you deviate grossly and deliberately by agreement, *unaware* that you are breaking the law e.g. you agree to open 1H third in hand on all three counts, unaware that such an undeclared agreement is illegal. - Few players know or understand current laws and regulations. Many break rules by mistake. - Nevertheless, if you know the law and you agree on even a *minor* deliberate deviation from a declared agreement, it is more than a CPU -- you are cheating. - As for most bridge-rules, I the definitions need tightening up: Simplification, and clarification, with practical examples (preferably "on the cusp"). From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Oct 14 09:09:03 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:09:03 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E978091.8050700@nhcc.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E95BEBE.40401@ulb.ac.be> <4E978091.8050700@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E97E00F.8060509@aol.com> "Misbid controls"; fine idea. Many years ago when experimenting with a complicated system which both of us (my partner and I) tended to forget or confuse we contemplated using a 3 diamond bid to mean. "partner I have forgotten the system and don't understand anything". Misbid control? Ciao, JE Am 14.10.2011 02:21, schrieb Steve Willner: > [The following seems to have gone only to Alain, not to the whole list. > Apologies if I'm wrong.] > > On 10/12/2011 12:22 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> The confusion comes from history : there was a school who advocated >> opening on weak (typically 3-6 HCP) hands, albeit naturally and with >> specific criteria about where the points are. They called them psyches, >> because at this time those openings were called psyches. > Yes. I'm most familiar with the Kaplan-Sheinwold version, but there may > have been (or still be) others. This is what I'm calling the "popular" > definition of psych. With this definition, "psych control" indeed has a > meaning, and both the psych and the control are part of the system. > > The contradiction comes when you try to extend "psych control" to the > _legal_ definition of "psych." That definition is "(intentional) > departure from system." But if you have methods in place to deal with, > say, an ultra-light opening, then such an opening is (legally) not a > departure at all, it's part of the system. Most players would probably > still call it "a psych" on the basis of the popular definition, but by > the legal definition, it isn't a psych. > > I'm sure this would all be clearer if we used a different word for > "departure from system" than we do for "ultra-light or misleading > action." I'd be happy with "misbid" for the former; if you think about > "misbid controls," I think you'll get my point about "psych controls." > (Yes, there are entertaining stories of pairs devising "misbid > controls," but I hope the main point is clear.) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Oct 14 09:36:13 2011 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:36:13 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E979353.5020405@nhcc.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> <4E979353.5020405@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E97E66D.9020208@skynet.be> A wonderful post from Steve, with well chosen examples, and a clear message, with which I agree completely. (you may be waiting for a "But,..." here, but I'll have to disappoint you). (oh no - there's that but after all) :) Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/13/2011 8:25 AM, PL wrote: >> In the Wonderful World of Willner, if someone opens One Spade with a low >> doubleton, when it systemically shows five, the question is whether the >> true agreement is that One Spade shows either an opening bid with five >> spades or less than an opening bid with two spades. > > Perhaps I confused the issue by writing "true agreement" rather than > "true understanding." Yes, the above is the question (or one of them), > but in the case of the 1S bid, the answer will very likely be obvious. > Of course if responder has 12 points, four spades, and doesn't force to > game in spades, we may reach a different obvious conclusion. > >> This is because in >> Willnerland, the translation of the Laws has a typo, in that it says in >> 40C1: > > Nothing to do with 40C1. > > Discussion and experience are two ways an understanding can be reached, > but there is at least one more: implications of other agreements. If we > agree "weak NT" and nothing else, then even on the first board we ever > play together, we have an implicit understanding that 1m-1M-1NT does not > show a minimum, balanced hand. (There are at least a couple of > possibilities for what it does show.) This agreement would be alertable > in the ACBL. Does anyone disagree so far? > > A more practical example is that we agree "1NT forcing, 1M-1NT-2m shows > three cards in m, 1H-1NT-2H shows six H, and 1H-1NT-2S shows extra > values." So then opener gets dealt a 4522 minimum, opens 1H, and sees > 1NT. So he bids, say, 2C; so far so good. But later when the opponents > ask for an explanation, they are told 2C shows three cards. The ruling > here is a little trickier, but this is probably MI. Most likely the > true understanding is "three cards or 4522 exactly." The point is that > the opponents are at the very least entitled to know that 4522 has never > been discussed, and the assurance of 3 clubs was misleading. > > Now we come to your 2C bid, which you tell opponents is strong and > forcing. If the opponents know that 2D is an automatic response, or > even a very likely one, they can form their own opinion of how likely it > is that you hold a weak hand with diamonds. (The can also ask about > partnership experience.) But without knowing that, they have no way to > suspect the possibility. I'd call that MI. In addition, 2C either > strong or weak with diamonds is illegal in most ACBL events (silly rule, > but there it is), and it makes no sense to let people bypass the rule by > claiming that 2C was a psych. (Some will see an analogy to "could have > known" rules.) Your system explicitly caters to the weak hand with > diamonds, and it seems easy to rule that the bid is part of the system. > > If instead you were playing a different system over 2C, say with > transfer responses and a 2S negative, and _then_ you want to psych 2C > with long diamonds, that's a different matter. (Well, don't do it in > the ACBL, but that's for a different reason.) Here your system doesn't > cater to the psych, and it's unreasonable to rule that it is part of > your understandings unless there's other evidence. This is analogous to > the 1S example above. The question is whether the system caters to the > hand type or not. If the system followup caters to a specific hand > type, it seems automatic to rule that that hand type is part of the > understanding. > > If you remember, by the way, I agreed with you on the original case. In > that example, there was no particular evidence that the system catered > to the purported psych. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3950 - Release Date: 10/13/11 > > -- Herman De Wael Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 14 14:04:22 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:04:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E982546.1080001@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2011 3:05, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Steve Willner, 14th October 2011 -> > > [snip] > I'm sure this would all be clearer if we used a different word for > "departure from system" than we do for "ultra-light or misleading action." > [snip] > > Eric Landau, 13th May 2005 -> > > I think the word Nigel is looking for is the one he used initially, > "deviation". > > Nigel's three orthogonal criteria give eight possible combinations. > Allow me to offer a table of appropriate terminology: > > Gross?.....Deliberate?....Agreement?....What is it? > > No.........No.............No............Misbid > No.........No.............Yes...........Misinformation > No.........Yes............No............Judgment > No.........Yes............Yes...........CPU > Yes........No.............No............Misbid > Yes........No.............Yes...........Misinformation > Yes........Yes............No............Psych > Yes........Yes............Yes...........Cheating > > That's six possibilities for the eight combinations and, whether Nigel > likes it or not, the laws do not allow us to treat them all alike. > > AG : not a bad effort at all. One minor quibble : drawing the line between judgment and psych according to the amount of deviation doesn't seem right. This would often be a characteristic, but doesn't match with the brass tacks, which draw the line according to intent : - judgment uis used for constructive efficiency - a psych tries to decieve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111014/fe0a6dca/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 14 14:12:12 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:12:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E97E00F.8060509@aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E95BEBE.40401@ulb.ac.be> <4E978091.8050700@nhcc.net> <4E97E00F.8060509@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E98271C.70500@ulb.ac.be> Le 14/10/2011 9:09, Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > "Misbid controls"; fine idea. Many years ago when experimenting with a > complicated system which both of us (my partner and I) tended to forget > or confuse we contemplated using a 3 diamond bid to mean. "partner I > have forgotten the system and don't understand anything". Misbid control? AG : definitely ; and should be allowed. And often a case of AI matching UI ;-) > > Ciao, JE > Am 14.10.2011 02:21, schrieb Steve Willner: >> [The following seems to have gone only to Alain, not to the whole list. >> Apologies if I'm wrong.] >> >> On 10/12/2011 12:22 PM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>> The confusion comes from history : there was a school who advocated >>> opening on weak (typically 3-6 HCP) hands, albeit naturally and with >>> specific criteria about where the points are. They called them psyches, >>> because at this time those openings were called psyches. >> Yes. I'm most familiar with the Kaplan-Sheinwold version, but there may >> have been (or still be) others. This is what I'm calling the "popular" >> definition of psych. With this definition, "psych control" indeed has a >> meaning, and both the psych and the control are part of the system. >> >> The contradiction comes when you try to extend "psych control" to the >> _legal_ definition of "psych." That definition is "(intentional) >> departure from system." But if you have methods in place to deal with, >> say, an ultra-light opening, then such an opening is (legally) not a >> departure at all, it's part of the system. Most players would probably >> still call it "a psych" on the basis of the popular definition, but by >> the legal definition, it isn't a psych. >> >> I'm sure this would all be clearer if we used a different word for >> "departure from system" than we do for "ultra-light or misleading >> action." I'd be happy with "misbid" for the former; if you think about >> "misbid controls," I think you'll get my point about "psych controls." >> (Yes, there are entertaining stories of pairs devising "misbid >> controls," but I hope the main point is clear.) >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 14 15:28:17 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:28:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] asking about __ with no bridge reason In-Reply-To: References: <4E959AE9.30300@nhcc.net> <4E977BA2.30006@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0537338B-6487-4B09-B90E-231ECB980C12@starpower.net> On Oct 13, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:00:34 -0400, Steve Willner > wrote: > >> On 10/12/2011 9:10 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> In this case I am more sympathetic. The player does not want a >>> dump of >>> all >>> information about the 9. >> >> Regardless of what the player wants, he mustn't mislead an >> opponent in >> the process of getting it. It isn't hard. >> >>>> What information is UI? The opponents' agreements?! >>> >>> The fact that declarer asked the question. >> >> Why do you think that is UI? That has to be one of the most bizarre >> ideas I've seen on this list. > > I always assumed that if a player asks me a question about my bids, > and > that wakes me up to the fact that I have misbid, that I am not > allowed to > use the information. Not true? Not true. L73D1: "Inferences from such variation (as from the "desirable... imvarying manner" of the first sentence) may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk." Of course, that wording covers only drawing inferences from the question itself ("only by an opponent"); inferences from partner's answer to the question remain UI (L73C). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 14 15:51:42 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:51:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <1B93E04228BE444DBD78FD6D44A1104A@G3> References: <1B93E04228BE444DBD78FD6D44A1104A@G3> Message-ID: <665B57AE-8593-481C-B266-290C8D27C74D@starpower.net> On Oct 14, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Eric Landau, 13th May 2005] > I think the word Nigel is looking for is the one he used initially, > "deviation". [Richard Hills, yesterday] > Nigel's three orthogonal criteria give eight possible > combinations. Allow me to offer a table of appropriate terminology: > Gross?.....Deliberate?....Agreement?....What is it? That's six > possibilities > for the eight combinations and, whether Nigel likes it or not, the > laws do > not allow us to treat them all alike. > No.........No.............No............Misbid > No.........No.............Yes...........Misinformation > No.........Yes............No............Judgment > No.........Yes............Yes...........CPU > Yes........No.............No............Misbid > Yes........No.............Yes...........Misinformation > Yes........Yes............No............Psych > Yes........Yes............Yes...........Cheating > > IMO: > - The laws of Bridge are wrong to distinguish *deviation* from *psych* > (gross deviation) because the main result is an opportunity to > rationalise > for players and another judgement problem for directors. Nonsense. A "deviation" attempts to provide a more accurate description of one's hand than the systemic alternative, as when one opens 1NT showing 15-17 HCP with a soft 18-count that provides no more playing strength than an average 17-count. A "psych" attempts to provide a false and misleading description of one's hand. In that sense, they are opposites, and anyone who can't distinguish between them shouldn't be directing, or even playing above the novice level. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From gampas at aol.com Sat Oct 15 14:16:12 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com><4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com><4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com><4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8CE594B5CCE5044-1518-48306@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> [Herman de Wael] Basically, what you are saying is that it's OK to psyche once, and twice, but not the third time. How is that stance so much different from mine, which says that it's OK to psyche just once? (and not even that) [Paul Lamford] Let us just consider an analogy with football (soccer), the world's most popular game. Repeated foul play leads to a yellow card. The first foul is punished by a free kick, the second foul by a stern talking to, the third foul is a yellow card. That is (broadly) the advice to referees. All we need to decide is what "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings" means as far as the number of deviations is concerned. If the WBFLC had meant that "a second deviation leads to an implicit understanding", they could easily have used that form of words. I submit therefore, that it is a case of "three strikes and you are out", and this is the benchmark for an implicit understanding. From gampas at aol.com Sat Oct 15 14:18:53 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:18:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [BLML] Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra (was Veldhoven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CE594BBCB7FFAF-1518-484CA@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> What are the dates of Canberra please, Richard? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 16 20:49:21 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:49:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call Message-ID: 1NT 2S 2D The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead restrictions) does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid question. THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. But the law suggests that the withdrawn call might relate to two suits. If so, then obviously the law is not concerned with the call, it is concerned with the "meaning" of the call. But of course you might cringe from using the word meaning. Has anyone ever thought about this? Do they teach the same thing everywhere? Bob F. (who had this problem on Friday with a different auction: 1S 2C P X) From petereidt at t-online.de Sun Oct 16 21:01:08 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:01:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?what_does_it_mean_for_a_suit_to_relate_to_a_call?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RFVxM-1nmef20@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Robert Frick" > 1NT 2S 2D > > The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead restrictions) > does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid > question. indeed > THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. obviously ?? I disagree > But the law suggests that the withdrawn call might relate to two > suits. If so, then obviously the law is not concerned with the call, > it is concerned with the "meaning" of the call. But of course you > might cringe from using the word meaning. > > Has anyone ever thought about this? Do they teach the same thing > everywhere? > > Bob F. (who had this problem on Friday with a different auction: 1S 2C > P X) This is a totally different problem. The keyword in Law 26 is "specified", not "related". The double is not related to a specified suit (or suits) whilst the 2 D bid most probably is. To what suit(s) you will be told by offender off the table and according to his intended action (showing diamonds (natural signoff) or hearts (transfer) or someting else) you apply Law 26 A (on or more specified suits) or Law 26 B (something unspecified). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 16 22:39:44 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:39:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra (was Veldhoven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8CE594BBCB7FFAF-1518-484CA@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: The dates of Canberra start for Women's, Restricted and Senior (59+) players on Wednesday 18th January. For Open players the start date is Thursday 19th January. All events conclude on Sunday 29th January. The main event is the South West Pacific Teams, a Swiss of 12 x 20-board matches, which runs from Monday 23rd January to Thursday 26th January. Further details can be found at http://www.summerfestivalofbridge.com/ 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/20111016/b79b0bcc/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 17 00:31:35 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:31:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1B93E04228BE444DBD78FD6D44A1104A@G3> Message-ID: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Boscombe Valley Mystery -> "Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing," answered Holmes thoughtfully. "It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different." Nigel Guthrie's circumstantial evidence -> IMO: - The laws of Bridge are wrong to distinguish *deviation* from *psych* (gross deviation) because the main result is an opportunity to rationalise for players and another judgement problem for directors. [snip] Richard Hills' circumstantial evidence -> In my opinion Nigel is fighting a 1997 battle that he has already won from 2008. The key Law 40C1 does not distinguish between "judgement" deviations and "gross" deviations from notional partnership understandings.(1) Eric Landau's circumstantial evidence -> Nonsense. A "deviation" attempts to provide a more accurate description of one's hand than the systemic alternative, as when one opens 1NT showing 15-17 HCP with a soft 18-count that provides no more playing strength than an average 17-count. A "psych" attempts to provide a false and misleading description of one's hand. In that sense, they are opposites, and anyone who can't distinguish between them shouldn't be directing, or even playing above the novice level. Richard Hills, novice player -> For "systemic alternative" read "notional systemic alternative". If a player repeatedly judges to downgrade a soft 18-count, that will "then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system", Law 40C1. That partnership repeatedly judging soft 18-counts must amend 1NT = 15-17 to 1NT = 15-17+ on their System Cards (and add a footnote if only one player of the partnership is pessimistic with soft 18-counts).(2) Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) Law 40B2(d) permits Regulating Authorities to prohibit a "gross" deviation (but not prohibit a "judgement" deviation) which is NOT a partnership understanding, if the gross deviation is from an artificial partnership understanding. (2) In the Ali-Hills partnership I use penalty redoubles more often than Hashmat does (e.g. we scored +1000 in 5Hxx when winning yesterday's Swiss Butler Pairs), but such redoubles are so infrequent that I have not bothered listing their skewed nature on our System Cards. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111016/58c5df5d/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Oct 17 01:14:28 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:14:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Robert Frick" writes: > 1NT 2S 2D > > The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead restrictions) > does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid question. > THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. No, it is not obvious. If the 2D bidder intended the bid as a transfer, then it relates to hearts, and if he replaces the bid with a pass, the lead penalty applies to hearts. (This would be easier to see if he bid 2D before his RHO had called; it would then be clear that the 2D related to hearts.) Similarly, with 2D a transfer, a correction to 3H would show a more precise meaning, and L27B1(b) would apply, so opener would not be barred. > Bob F. (who had this problem on Friday with a different auction: 1S 2C P X) Most likely, the double does not relate to any specific suit here (presumably, it's a takeout double of a bid not made), so L26B applies. If you play Rozenkranz doubles, then the double could relate to clubs (showing a club raise with an honor), but the correction to 3C would eliminate the L26 penalty. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 17 03:49:34 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:49:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:14:28 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > "Robert Frick" writes: > >> 1NT 2S 2D >> >> The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead restrictions) >> does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid question. >> THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. > > No, it is not obvious. Sorry, I guess I was way too subtle. The call is two diamonds. That sounds a lot like diamonds. So there is that association. If you look in the definitions, the bid of 2D is "an undertaking to win at least a specfided number of odd tricks in a specified domination. In other words, 8 tricks in diamonds. So there is that connection. So they are definitely related or connected or associated. That connection might not be important to L26. It almost certainly isn't, though the law itself doesn't say that. But what connection is important? Here, you say what matters is the intended meaning. Which is what Peter said. I didn't want to tell other people what really mattered for the connection, I wanted to hear what other people said. If the 2D bidder intended the bid as a transfer, > then it > relates to hearts, and if he replaces the bid with a pass, the lead > penalty > applies to hearts. (This would be easier to see if he bid 2D before his > RHO had > called; it would then be clear that the 2D related to hearts.) > > Similarly, with 2D a transfer, a correction to 3H would show a more > precise > meaning, and L27B1(b) would apply, so opener would not be barred. > >> Bob F. (who had this problem on Friday with a different auction: 1S 2C >> P X) > > Most likely, the double does not relate to any specific suit here > (presumably, > it's a takeout double of a bid not made), so L26B applies. > > If you play Rozenkranz doubles, then the double could relate to clubs > (showing a > club raise with an honor), but the correction to 3C would eliminate the > L26 > penalty. The doubler passed and the opponents ended up playing the contract with the doubler's partner on opening lead From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 17 03:51:59 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:51:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: <1RFVxM-1nmef20@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RFVxM-1nmef20@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:01:08 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: "Robert Frick" >> 1NT 2S 2D >> >> The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead restrictions) >> does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid >> question. > > indeed > >> THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. > > obviously ?? I disagree > >> But the law suggests that the withdrawn call might relate to two >> suits. If so, then obviously the law is not concerned with the call, >> it is concerned with the "meaning" of the call. But of course you >> might cringe from using the word meaning. >> >> Has anyone ever thought about this? Do they teach the same thing >> everywhere? >> >> Bob F. (who had this problem on Friday with a different auction: 1S 2C >> P X) > > This is a totally different problem. > > The keyword in Law 26 is "specified", not "related". > The double is not related to a specified suit (or suits) whilst > the 2 D bid most probably is. To what suit(s) you will be told by > offender off the table and according to his intended action > (showing diamonds (natural signoff) or hearts (transfer) or > someting else) you apply Law 26 A (on or more specified > suits) or Law 26 B (something unspecified). Your ruling is AI to all parties, right? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 17 04:57:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:57:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16D [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 16D - 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. In a parallel Law 26 thread, Robert Frick asked -> Your ruling is AI to all parties, right? Richard Hills answer -> If an offending side withdraws a call or play, the fact that the Director has given a Law 16D ruling does not thereby make the withdrawn action AI to the offending side. Law 26 is a special subset(1) of Law 16D2, with extra rectifications. So likewise the fact that the Director has given a Law 26 ruling does not over-ride Law 16D2, therefore the offender's partner has her choice amongst logical alternatives restricted during her defensive plays. Law 10C4 - Choice after Irregularity -> ***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). Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) According to a publicly released early draft of the current Lawbook, the Drafting Committee considered abolishing the unnecessary Law 26. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111017/e8977c9a/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Oct 17 09:33:25 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:33:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?what_does_it_mean_for_a_suit_to_relate_to_a_call?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RFhhN-25qvuS0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Robert Frick" > On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:01:08 -0400, Peter Eidt > wrote: > > > > Von: "Robert Frick" > >> 1NT 2S 2D > >> > >> The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead > restrictions) >> does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is > a stupid >> question. > > > > > indeed > > > >> THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. > > > > obviously ?? I disagree > > > >> But the law suggests that the withdrawn call might relate to two >> > suits. If so, then obviously the law is not concerned with the call, > >> it is concerned with the "meaning" of the call. But of course you > >> might cringe from using the word meaning. > >> > >> Has anyone ever thought about this? Do they teach the same thing >> > everywhere? > >> > >> Bob F. (who had this problem on Friday with a different auction: 1S > 2C >> P X) > > > > > This is a totally different problem. > > > > The keyword in Law 26 is "specified", not "related". > > The double is not related to a specified suit (or suits) whilst > > the 2 D bid most probably is. To what suit(s) you will be told by > > offender off the table and according to his intended action > > (showing diamonds (natural signoff) or hearts (transfer) or > > someting else) you apply Law 26 A (on or more specified > > suits) or Law 26 B (something unspecified). > > Your ruling is AI to all parties, right? The ruling in itself is AI (see Law 16 A1c), but if the ruling reveals an - up to this point unspecified - suit, this information is UI to offender's partner. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 17 15:01:31 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:01:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <8CE594B5CCE5044-1518-48306@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com><4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com><4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com><4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> <8CE594B5CCE5044-1518-48306@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <9CBE7FDF-119C-4C5A-A5D6-53F722AF278B@starpower.net> On Oct 15, 2011, at 8:16 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Herman de Wael] > Basically, what you are saying is that it's OK to psyche once, and > twice, but not the third time. How is that stance so much different > from mine, which says that it's OK to psyche just once? (and not > even > that) > > [Paul Lamford] > Let us just consider an analogy with football (soccer), the world's > most popular game. Repeated foul play leads to a yellow card. The > first > foul is punished by a free kick, the second foul by a stern talking > to, > the third foul is a yellow card. That is (broadly) the advice to > referees. > > All we need to decide is what "Repeated deviations lead to implicit > understandings" means as far as the number of deviations is concerned. > If the WBFLC had meant that "a second deviation leads to an implicit > understanding", they could easily have used that form of words. I > submit therefore, that it is a case of "three strikes and you are > out", > and this is the benchmark for an implicit understanding. It's not that easy. Depending on the nature of the deviation and the circumstances under which it occurs, a single instance may be sufficient to form an implicit understanding, or it may take half a dozen. We can't realistically come up with one number for which it makes sense to say, "You get this many, but not one more." I'm afraid this is just another one of those things about which directors and ACs are expected to exercise their judgment -- which is, after all, what we pay them to do. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 17 15:11:02 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:11:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C38B8D2-A4E5-4CE4-BD25-715BA3468E2F@starpower.net> On Oct 16, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:14:28 -0400, David Grabiner > wrote: > >> "Robert Frick" writes: >> >>> 1NT 2S 2D >>> >>> The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead >>> restrictions) >>> does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid >>> question. >>> THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. >> >> No, it is not obvious. > > Sorry, I guess I was way too subtle. The call is two diamonds. That > sounds > a lot like diamonds. So there is that association. If you look in the > definitions, the bid of 2D is "an undertaking to win at least a > specfided > number of odd tricks in a specified domination. In other words, 8 > tricks > in diamonds. So there is that connection. > > So they are definitely related or connected or associated. > > That connection might not be important to L26. It almost certainly > isn't, > though the law itself doesn't say that. I'd say it does. Despite using the word "related" in the first sentence of L26A, the substantive text of remainder of that law uses the word "specified" throughout. Whether a suit not "specified" is or isn't "related" makes no difference in the application of the law. > But what connection is important? > Here, you say what matters is the intended meaning. Which is what > Peter > said. I didn't want to tell other people what really mattered for the > connection, I wanted to hear what other people said. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 17 16:11:29 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:11:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: <7C38B8D2-A4E5-4CE4-BD25-715BA3468E2F@starpower.net> References: <7C38B8D2-A4E5-4CE4-BD25-715BA3468E2F@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:11:02 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 16, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:14:28 -0400, David Grabiner >> wrote: >> >>> "Robert Frick" writes: >>> >>>> 1NT 2S 2D >>>> >>>> The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead >>>> restrictions) >>>> does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid >>>> question. >>>> THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. >>> >>> No, it is not obvious. >> >> Sorry, I guess I was way too subtle. The call is two diamonds. That >> sounds >> a lot like diamonds. So there is that association. If you look in the >> definitions, the bid of 2D is "an undertaking to win at least a >> specfided >> number of odd tricks in a specified domination. In other words, 8 >> tricks >> in diamonds. So there is that connection. >> >> So they are definitely related or connected or associated. >> >> That connection might not be important to L26. It almost certainly >> isn't, >> though the law itself doesn't say that. > > I'd say it does. Despite using the word "related" in the first > sentence of L26A, the substantive text of remainder of that law uses > the word "specified" throughout. Whether a suit not "specified" is > or isn't "related" makes no difference in the application of the law. Um, a call of diamonds specifies diamonds as the suit that will be trump if the auction is passed out. Could you be confusing the call with the meaning of the call? I agree that L26 should probably refer to meaning or intended meaning or something like that, but I don't know exactly what. If you are trying to argue the law clearly specifies which relations or specifications are relevant, I am very eager to hear what that clarity is. > >> But what connection is important? >> Here, you say what matters is the intended meaning. Which is what >> Peter >> said. I didn't want to tell other people what really mattered for the >> connection, I wanted to hear what other people said. > > > 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 -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 17 16:24:16 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:24:16 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: <1RFhhN-25qvuS0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RFhhN-25qvuS0@fwd05.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:33:25 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: "Robert Frick" >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:01:08 -0400, Peter Eidt >> wrote: >> >> >> > Von: "Robert Frick" >> >> 1NT 2S 2D >> >> >> >> The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead >> restrictions) >> does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is >> a stupid >> question. >> > >> >> > indeed >> > >> >> THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. >> > >> > obviously ?? I disagree >> > >> >> But the law suggests that the withdrawn call might relate to two >> >> suits. If so, then obviously the law is not concerned with the call, >> >> it is concerned with the "meaning" of the call. But of course you >> >> might cringe from using the word meaning. >> >> >> >> Has anyone ever thought about this? Do they teach the same thing >> >> everywhere? >> >> >> >> Bob F. (who had this problem on Friday with a different auction: 1S >> 2C >> P X) >> > >> >> > This is a totally different problem. >> > >> > The keyword in Law 26 is "specified", not "related". >> > The double is not related to a specified suit (or suits) whilst >> > the 2 D bid most probably is. To what suit(s) you will be told by >> > offender off the table and according to his intended action >> > (showing diamonds (natural signoff) or hearts (transfer) or >> > someting else) you apply Law 26 A (on or more specified >> > suits) or Law 26 B (something unspecified). >> >> Your ruling is AI to all parties, right? > > The ruling in itself is AI (see Law 16 A1c), but if the ruling > reveals an - up to this point unspecified - suit, this > information is UI to offender's partner. I think you (and Richard) are wrong and the law is very clear on this and this is a situation where the law should be taken seriously. The law lists information that is AI. Then it says that any other information is UI. So, even if information *was* UI, it stops being UI when it becomes AI. For example, a player opens 1D out of turn. The bid is withdrawn. LHO passes, and the player bids 1D. The fact that the player has a opening hand is not UI anymore. Or, if you want, a player pulls the pass card out of the box but does not actually put it on the table. In ACBL-land, it is not a call. At this point, it is UI to partner that this player does not have an opening hand and I will scrutinize his hand if he preempts. Then there are one or more passes and this player passes. Now "not having an opening hand" is AI. Shall I go on? Partner has a penalty card which reveals to me that declarer has the ace of hearts. UI. Declarer plays the ace of hearts. Now it is AI. Of course, if you want to argue that the laws are different for director rulings than for calls and plays, you can do that, but I am pretty sure there is nothing in the laws to support this distinction. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 17 16:36:11 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:36:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <9CBE7FDF-119C-4C5A-A5D6-53F722AF278B@starpower.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com> <4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com> <4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com> <4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> <8CE594B5CCE5044-1518-48306@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> <9CBE7FDF-119C-4C5A-A5D6-53F722AF278B@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:01:31 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 15, 2011, at 8:16 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> [Herman de Wael] >> Basically, what you are saying is that it's OK to psyche once, and >> twice, but not the third time. How is that stance so much different >> from mine, which says that it's OK to psyche just once? (and not >> even >> that) >> >> [Paul Lamford] >> Let us just consider an analogy with football (soccer), the world's >> most popular game. Repeated foul play leads to a yellow card. The >> first >> foul is punished by a free kick, the second foul by a stern talking >> to, >> the third foul is a yellow card. That is (broadly) the advice to >> referees. >> >> All we need to decide is what "Repeated deviations lead to implicit >> understandings" means as far as the number of deviations is concerned. >> If the WBFLC had meant that "a second deviation leads to an implicit >> understanding", they could easily have used that form of words. I >> submit therefore, that it is a case of "three strikes and you are >> out", >> and this is the benchmark for an implicit understanding. > > It's not that easy. Depending on the nature of the deviation and the > circumstances under which it occurs, a single instance may be > sufficient to form an implicit understanding, or it may take half a > dozen. We can't realistically come up with one number for which it > makes sense to say, "You get this many, but not one more." I'm > afraid this is just another one of those things about which directors > and ACs are expected to exercise their judgment -- which is, after > all, what we pay them to do. Yes, but I don't have any way of knowing the count. Right? (I ruled against a player who overcalled with 7 HCP when it said 8 on his card. He had never played before in our club. I guessed it was common.) (From about a month ago: A player says he never before opened a club with just two clubs [alertable at our club]. So it was a tactical bid. The opponents consult a tournament director who happens to be playing that day, and he says the player is lying. Without even knowing who the player is. Now what?) O From petereidt at t-online.de Mon Oct 17 17:00:45 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:00:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?what_does_it_mean_for_a_suit_to_relate_to_a_call?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RFogH-2JYd280@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Robert Frick" > Um, a call of diamonds specifies diamonds as the suit that will be > trump if the auction is passed out. > Nonsense ! "... a call related to (a) specified suit(s) ..." IMHO this is - for me as a non-native English speaking person - crystal clear that this does _not_ mean the denomination that is written on the bid. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 17 17:18:37 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:18:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: <1RFogH-2JYd280@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RFogH-2JYd280@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:00:45 -0400, Peter Eidt wrote: > Von: "Robert Frick" >> Um, a call of diamonds specifies diamonds as the suit that will be >> trump if the auction is passed out. >> > > Nonsense ! > > "... a call related to (a) specified suit(s) ..." > > IMHO this is - for me as a non-native English speaking > person - crystal clear that this does _not_ mean the > denomination that is written on the bid. Right. When people read, they use their expectations and beliefs to understand. Same for listening. When I write computer code, it never works, and they I have to look at the code and figure out what it really says. Not what I expect it say. Not what I expect it to mean. Not what I hope it means. Actually, I have to find the place where it tells the computer to do something that I didn't believe it was saying. That's really hard. And it is why someone said that a computer programmer should look at the laws. You are using your beliefs and expectations. I have no doubt that you read the code and think that. That thought no doubt corresponds to what the lawmakers intended. I was making a point about what is actually in the law. The law just says "relate" and "specifies". If you draw a distinction between the call and the "meaning" of the call, that distinction isn't in the laws. No doubt the lawmakers did not mean the physical call. But what did they mean by "relate" and "specify". I doubt that there is a standard interpretation across directors and situations. And if you want to say it is intended meaning -- you made an error on one of your rulings. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Oct 17 18:29:00 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:29:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] what does it mean for a suit to relate to a call In-Reply-To: References: <7C38B8D2-A4E5-4CE4-BD25-715BA3468E2F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <42E12FB9-3598-4F90-86F5-3C94F8FEA456@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:11:02 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Oct 16, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:14:28 -0400, David Grabiner >>> wrote: >>> >>>> "Robert Frick" writes: >>>> >>>>> 1NT 2S 2D >>>>> >>>>> The two diamond bid is withdrawn. For applying L26 (lead >>>>> restrictions) >>>>> does 2D relate to any suits? I mean, in a way this is a stupid >>>>> question. >>>>> THe call is 2D. Obviously it relates to diamonds. >>>> >>>> No, it is not obvious. >>> >>> Sorry, I guess I was way too subtle. The call is two diamonds. That >>> sounds >>> a lot like diamonds. So there is that association. If you look in >>> the >>> definitions, the bid of 2D is "an undertaking to win at least a >>> specfided >>> number of odd tricks in a specified domination. In other words, 8 >>> tricks >>> in diamonds. So there is that connection. >>> >>> So they are definitely related or connected or associated. >>> >>> That connection might not be important to L26. It almost certainly >>> isn't, >>> though the law itself doesn't say that. >> >> I'd say it does. Despite using the word "related" in the first >> sentence of L26A, the substantive text of remainder of that law uses >> the word "specified" throughout. Whether a suit not "specified" is >> or isn't "related" makes no difference in the application of the law. > > Um, a call of diamonds specifies diamonds as the suit that will be > trump > if the auction is passed out. > > Could you be confusing the call with the meaning of the call? I > agree that > L26 should probably refer to meaning or intended meaning or > something like > that, but I don't know exactly what. If you are trying to argue the > law > clearly specifies which relations or specifications are relevant, I am > very eager to hear what that clarity is. I'm not sure "confusing" is the right word; the law itself conflates them. Given the dictionary definition of the word "specify", however, it seems clear that a call (or anything else) without a meaning can't "specify" anything. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 18 02:01:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:01:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: From the parallel thread discussing Law 26, Robert Frick -> I think you [Peter Eidt] (and Richard [Hills]) are wrong and the law is very clear on this and this is a situation where the law should be taken seriously. [snip] James Surowiecki (author of The Wisdom of Crowds), The Collaboration Landscape, page 4 -> The Catholic Church created the Devil's Advocate. It forces people to think about things differently. The catch is that if the same person is always the Devil's Advocate then the group learns to discount that person's contribution. The role needs to change and should also be a genuine position. Richard Hills -> An examination of Robert Frick's homepage http://rfrick.info/ demonstrably suggests that Robert Frick is a genuine contrarian / Devil's Advocate. Therefore Bob's homepage also demonstrably suggests that "a priori" Peter Eidt is likely to be right and "a priori" Bob Frick is likely to be wrong. The problem, of course, is that "a posteriori" Devil's Advocate Frick occasionally writes an accurate and useful posting which blmlers incorrectly ignore because of its contrarian source. James Surowiecki (author of The Wisdom of Crowds), The Collaboration Landscape, page 4 -> [snip] Experts' forecasts are no better than novices'. Experts are as confident in their mistakes. There are only two kinds of experts ? Bridge Players and Weathermen ? who have consistently been shown to be better. Unless you want to aggregate in these areas then you should aggregate the group view. Diversity also makes it easier to resist peer pressure. Solomon Ash conducted an experiment with lines on cards. They key to the experiment was to put ten people in a row (9 of Ash?s people and one victim) and run down the line asking them whether the cards matched. The experiment ran a number of times. When the group gave the wrong answers then the victim would give the same answer. Or change their mind. They were uncomfortable with their original, correct answer. After a debrief, people admitted to feeling pressure, or assuming they were missing something or eventually thought that the cards matched. [snip] Ash did a different experiment with 8 people offering up a false judgment, and one giving a true one. This was enough for the victim to give a true judgment. Richard Hills -> Blml lurkers have the advantage of blml activists often contradicting each other, thus making it much easier for the lurker to come to a true judgement.(1) Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) An accurate shortcut for blml lurkers would be to read only the postings by Grattan Endicott, and to burn before reading the other posts. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111018/0b5d140f/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 18 02:49:59 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:49:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:01:38 -0400, wrote: > > From the parallel thread discussing Law 26, Robert Frick -> > > I think you [Peter Eidt] (and Richard [Hills]) are wrong and the law is > very clear on this and this is a situation where the law should be taken > seriously. > [snip] > > James Surowiecki (author of The Wisdom of Crowds), The Collaboration > Landscape, page 4 -> > > The Catholic Church created the Devil's Advocate. It forces people to > think > about things differently. The catch is that if the same person is always > the Devil's Advocate then the group learns to discount that person's > contribution. The role needs to change and should also be a genuine > position. > > Richard Hills -> > > An examination of Robert Frick's homepage http://rfrick.info/ > demonstrably > suggests that Robert Frick is a genuine contrarian / Devil's Advocate. > Therefore Bob's homepage also demonstrably suggests that "a priori" Peter > Eidt is likely to be right and "a priori" Bob Frick is likely to be > wrong. > The problem, of course, is that "a posteriori" Devil's Advocate Frick > occasionally writes an accurate and useful posting which blmlers > incorrectly ignore because of its contrarian source. > > James Surowiecki (author of The Wisdom of Crowds), The Collaboration > Landscape, page 4 -> > > [snip] > Experts' forecasts are no better than novices'. Experts are as confident > in > their mistakes. There are only two kinds of experts ? Bridge Players and > Weathermen ? who have consistently been shown to be better. Unless you > want > to aggregate in these areas then you should aggregate the group view. > > Diversity also makes it easier to resist peer pressure. Solomon Ash > conducted an experiment with lines on cards. They key to the experiment > was > to put ten people in a row (9 of Ash?s people and one victim) and run > down > the line asking them whether the cards matched. The experiment ran a > number > of times. When the group gave the wrong answers then the victim would > give > the same answer. Or change their mind. They were uncomfortable with their > original, correct answer. After a debrief, people admitted to feeling > pressure, or assuming they were missing something or eventually thought > that the cards matched. > [snip] > Ash did a different experiment with 8 people offering up a false > judgment, > and one giving a true one. This was enough for the victim to give a true > judgment. To stay in character, I was told that the payoff for the Ash experiment was that the group got money only when everyone was right. This of course would be a huge disincentive to say something different from the group, because it guaranteed no payoff. If true, the Ash experiment cannot be trusted to mean what we think it means. And I have found that when everyone agrees, people tend not to think about their position. That's a bad sign for actually being right. My websites contain information you are not likely to know, not information you are likely to know. I basically don't bother with information that is already available. But partly right, I will sometimes sound more confident than I should be, knowing that it stimulates thinking and better answers. You would probably find that on my Gandhi page or my singing page. > > Richard Hills -> > > Blml lurkers have the advantage of blml activists often contradicting > each > other, thus making it much easier for the lurker to come to a true > judgement.(1) I hope I count as a lurker for this. I tend to ask questions and then formulate opinions later. (I have already thought about the not-UI-if-it-is-AI issue, but not the L26 issue. My only opinion so far is that there might not be a good answer and it is more complicated than people think.) Bob F. From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Oct 18 02:58:53 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:58:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <9CBE7FDF-119C-4C5A-A5D6-53F722AF278B@starpower.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com><4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com><4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com><4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> <8CE594B5CCE5044-1518-48306@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> <9CBE7FDF-119C-4C5A-A5D6-53F722AF278B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4E9CCF4D.2050701@comcast.net> On 10/17/11 9:01 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 15, 2011, at 8:16 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > >> [Herman de Wael] >> Basically, what you are saying is that it's OK to psyche once, and >> twice, but not the third time. How is that stance so much different >> from mine, which says that it's OK to psyche just once? (and not >> even >> that) >> >> [Paul Lamford] >> Let us just consider an analogy with football (soccer), the world's >> most popular game. Repeated foul play leads to a yellow card. The >> first >> foul is punished by a free kick, the second foul by a stern talking >> to, >> the third foul is a yellow card. That is (broadly) the advice to >> referees. >> >> All we need to decide is what "Repeated deviations lead to implicit >> understandings" means as far as the number of deviations is concerned. >> If the WBFLC had meant that "a second deviation leads to an implicit >> understanding", they could easily have used that form of words. I >> submit therefore, that it is a case of "three strikes and you are >> out", >> and this is the benchmark for an implicit understanding. > It's not that easy. Depending on the nature of the deviation and the > circumstances under which it occurs, a single instance may be > sufficient to form an implicit understanding, or it may take half a > dozen. We can't realistically come up with one number for which it > makes sense to say, "You get this many, but not one more." I'm > afraid this is just another one of those things about which directors > and ACs are expected to exercise their judgment -- which is, after > all, what we pay them to do. > > > Eric Landau Let's see...Director 1 gives one ruling, Director 2 gives another, Director 3 a third, etc. From what you are saying, it seems like the laws, at least as implemented, require players to engage in Director Roulette here...to the detriment of the game. I fail to see why the laws can't just permit open season on psychs...defined as gross deviations from agreements, as I understand it. If it's not a gross deviation, it's part of your system...to be alerted as appropriate. In my experience, allowing for a psych, whether based on past experience or not, will be wrong far more often than right. I enjoy playing against people who do this. Their poor scores when mistakenly allowing for a psych seem punishment enough. It seems to me that fielding, if left alone, is a self-correcting issue. If you disagree, please tell us how you see psychs differing from false-carding...acts that seems to enjoy full acceptance in our laws and practices. Is not the issue of fielding here the same? --Bob Park (FWIW, I rarely psych...and I don't think I have ever fielded a psych.) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 18 03:28:22 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:28:22 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick, Devil's Advocate -> To stay in character, I was told that the payoff for the Ash experiment was that the group got money only when everyone was right. This of course would be a huge disincentive to say something different from the group, because it guaranteed no payoff. If true, the Ash experiment cannot be trusted to mean what we think it means. [snip] Richard Hills, researcher -> To stay in character, I observe that "I was told" and "If true" are meaningless innuendoes. Indeed, after further research I have discovered that James Surowiecki was guilty of a misspelling; Solomon "Ash" was actually Solomon Asch. And the 1955 Scientific American article written by Asch himself -- reprinted at http://www.panarchy.org/asch/social.pressure.1955.html -- fails to support the Urban Myth of a monetary incentive for unanimity. Macquarie Dictionary -> urban myth, n. a fictional anecdote or story which is circulated orally through an urban community and gains widespread credence, such as the belief that there are alligators in the sewers of New York. Also, urban legend. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111018/ab549836/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Oct 18 04:01:00 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:01:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:28:22 -0400, wrote: > > Robert Frick, Devil's Advocate -> > > To stay in character, I was told that the payoff for the Ash experiment > was > that the group got money only when everyone was right. This of course > would be a huge disincentive to say something different from the group, > because it guaranteed no payoff. If true, the Ash experiment cannot be > trusted to mean what we think it means. > [snip] > > Richard Hills, researcher -> > > To stay in character, I observe that "I was told" and "If true" are > meaningless innuendoes. Indeed, after further research I have discovered > that James Surowiecki was guilty of a misspelling; Solomon "Ash" was > actually Solomon Asch. > > And the 1955 Scientific American article written by Asch himself -- > reprinted at http://www.panarchy.org/asch/social.pressure.1955.html -- > fails to support the Urban Myth of a monetary incentive for unanimity. > > Macquarie Dictionary -> > > urban myth, n. a fictional anecdote or story which is circulated orally > through an urban community and gains widespread credence, such as the > belief that there are alligators in the sewers of New York. Also, urban > legend. I think, proving your point. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 18 04:47:09 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:47:09 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E9CCF4D.2050701@comcast.net> Message-ID: Sherlock Holmes -> There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. Robert Park -> Let's see...Director 1 gives one ruling, Director 2 gives another, Director 3 a third, etc. From what you are saying, it seems like the laws, at least as implemented, require players to engage in Director Roulette here...to the detriment of the game. [snip] Richard Hills -> "Detriment of the game"? Yes and No. If one or more of the three Directors gives an unLawful ruling, then that is to the detriment of the game. But if the three Directors diligently assess Law 85 disputed facts, and their three assessments differ, then that is the nature of the game -- a game of complexity where both players and also Directors may legitimately differ from each other's opinions. Robert Park -> [snip] If you disagree, please tell us how you see psychs differing from false-carding...acts that seems to enjoy full acceptance in our laws and practices. Is not the issue of fielding here the same? --Bob Park (FWIW, I rarely psych...and I don't think I have ever fielded a psych.) Richard Hills -> "Fielding"? No and No. Since the adoption of the 2007 Lawbook in 2008, there is no such infraction as "fielding". There is either a legal Law 40A3 deviation or an illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding. And an illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding remains an illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding whether or not it is "fielded". "Fielding" is merely strong evidence that an illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding exists. Likewise, over-frequent false-carding creates an illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding. What's the problem? Mycroft Holmes -> Why is a laser beam like a goldfish? Because neither one can whistle. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111018/9c2a8737/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Tue Oct 18 15:40:17 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:40:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E9D81C1.8000106@comcast.net> On 10/17/11 10:47 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Sherlock Holmes -> > > There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. > > Robert Park -> > > Let's see...Director 1 gives one ruling, Director 2 gives another, > Director 3 a third, etc. From what you are saying, it seems like the > laws, at least as implemented, require players to engage in Director > Roulette here...to the detriment of the game. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > "Detriment of the game"? Yes and No. > > If one or more of the three Directors gives an unLawful ruling, then > that is to the detriment of the game. But if the three Directors > diligently assess Law 85 disputed facts, and their three assessments > differ, then that is the nature of the game -- a game of complexity > where both players and also Directors may legitimately differ from > each other's opinions. > > Robert Park -> > > [snip] > If you disagree, please tell us how you see psychs differing from > false-carding...acts that seems to enjoy full acceptance in our laws > and practices. Is not the issue of fielding here the same? > > --Bob Park (FWIW, I rarely psych...and I don't think I have ever > fielded a psych.) > > Richard Hills -> > > "Fielding"? No and No. > > Since the adoption of the 2007 Lawbook in 2008, there is no such > infraction as "fielding". There is either a legal Law 40A3 deviation > or an illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding. And an > illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding remains an > illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding whether or not > it is "fielded". "Fielding" is merely strong evidence that an illegal > Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding exists. > > Likewise, over-frequent false-carding creates an illegal Law 40C1 > undisclosed partnership understanding. What's the problem? > The problem is that these attempts to police a self-punishing behavior create more inequities than they resolve. To restate my points: 1. Psychs are legal [an inherent part of bridge that (in my view) spice up the game...much like preempts, weak 2-bids, and "could-be-short" openings]. 2. Acting on the suspicion that partner has psyched produces far more poor results than good results. 3. So let them psych, and let those who don't profit from others' faulty attempts to field when there is no psych. The criminals among will thus be justly punishing themselves for their own activities. What could be fairer? --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111018/8c218148/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Oct 18 15:48:06 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:48:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <4E9CCF4D.2050701@comcast.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com><4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com><4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com><4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> <8CE594B5CCE5044-1518-48306@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> <9CBE7FDF-119C-4C5A-A5D6-53F722AF278B@starpower.net> <4E9CCF4D.2050701@comcast.net> Message-ID: <2DEC23DA-28E0-4DA9-959D-1CB5779C1CE2@starpower.net> On Oct 17, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Robert Park wrote: > On 10/17/11 9:01 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> It's not that easy. Depending on the nature of the deviation and the >> circumstances under which it occurs, a single instance may be >> sufficient to form an implicit understanding, or it may take half a >> dozen. We can't realistically come up with one number for which it >> makes sense to say, "You get this many, but not one more." I'm >> afraid this is just another one of those things about which directors >> and ACs are expected to exercise their judgment -- which is, after >> all, what we pay them to do. > > Let's see...Director 1 gives one ruling, Director 2 gives another, > Director 3 a third, etc. From what you are saying, it seems like the > laws, at least as implemented, require players to engage in Director > Roulette here...to the detriment of the game. > > I fail to see why the laws can't just permit open season on > psychs...defined as gross deviations from agreements, as I understand > it. If it's not a gross deviation, it's part of your system...to be > alerted as appropriate. > > In my experience, allowing for a psych, whether based on past > experience > or not, will be wrong far more often than right. I enjoy playing > against > people who do this. Their poor scores when mistakenly allowing for a > psych seem punishment enough. It seems to me that fielding, if left > alone, is a self-correcting issue. > > If you disagree, please tell us how you see psychs differing from > false-carding...acts that seems to enjoy full acceptance in our > laws and > practices. Is not the issue of fielding here the same? I agree entirely with Bob on this. But, unfortunately, it just isn't the way life is in the still psych-phobic ACBL, and when I direct, they sign the check. Their regulations do not (explicitly) prohibit the second, or third, or Nth deviation for some value of N; they prohibit deviations based on partnership understandings, so, whether I like it or not, it's up to me to make the best determination I can as to whether any given deviation was or was not based on a partnership understanding. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 18 17:19:46 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:19:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson In-Reply-To: <2DEC23DA-28E0-4DA9-959D-1CB5779C1CE2@starpower.net> References: <4E9581BC.3000903@aol.com><4E958DAF.6040306@skynet.be> <4E95953A.9080801@aol.com><4E95B42F.8080506@nhcc.net> <4E96D8C8.4070402@aol.com><4E96F1BA.9050604@skynet.be> <4E96F88F.7020401@aol.com> <4E975B2E.3050302@skynet.be> <8CE594B5CCE5044-1518-48306@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com> <9CBE7FDF-119C-4C5A-A5D6-53F722AF278B@starpower.net> <4E9CCF4D.2050701@comcast.net> <2DEC23DA-28E0-4DA9-959D-1CB5779C1CE2@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4E9D9912.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/10/2011 15:48, Eric Landau a ?crit : > [Rober] > If you disagree, please tell us how you see psychs differing from > false-carding...acts that seems to enjoy full acceptance in our > laws and > practices. Is not the issue of fielding here the same? > I agree entirely with Bob on this. But, unfortunately, it just isn't > the way life is in the still psych-phobic ACBL, and when I direct, > they sign the check. Their regulations do not (explicitly) prohibit > the second, or third, or Nth deviation for some value of N; they > prohibit deviations based on partnership understandings, so, whether > I like it or not, it's up to me to make the best determination I can > as to whether any given deviation was or was not based on a > partnership understanding. > > AG : there are still fundamental differences : 1. - a well-trained pair has dozens of understandings about carding, vs thousands about bidding, - any carding may have at most 5 or 6 different meanings, usually on a yes / no basis, while a bid may have as many as you can think of, with more possible cases . This has important consequences : - more players forget their bidding agreements than their carding agreements, whence it will be easier to ascertain whether a deviation in the latter is an error or a deliberate act ; - violations will become "repeated", whence spottable, after a shorter time ; - card agreements are easier to describe (often, one word will suffice) and to understand (everybody knows what "count" means), whence the TD and AC will be on firmer ground to ascertain whether the description was correct. Perhaps all this explains the abovementioned "phoby". 2. There isn't such a possible gradation in carding deviations as there is in bidding ("gross"). Your count can't be "a bit even", even if your carding is a bit odd. So, either you deviate or you don't. 3. And, above all, you are compelled to play a card, not to bid (as opposed to call) ; whence there might be no meaning in the card you played, while bids have a meaning (even if not clear). There are pairs who play "very few signals", usually following with the lowest card and not helping declarer, while it is impossible to play "very few meaningful bids". And there is a moment in the unfolding of card play when everybody -even SBs- knows that defenders won't signal anymore, while still being compelled to play their cards. While, when this happens in the bidding, the player in charge makes a final bid. Whence looking for the meaning of every card is ill-advised. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Oct 18 17:39:28 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:39:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E9D81C1.8000106@comcast.net> References: <4E9D81C1.8000106@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4E9D9DB0.9010206@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/10/2011 15:40, Robert Park a ?crit : > On 10/17/11 10:47 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> Sherlock Holmes -> >> >> There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. >> >> Robert Park -> >> >> Let's see...Director 1 gives one ruling, Director 2 gives another, >> Director 3 a third, etc. From what you are saying, it seems like the >> laws, at least as implemented, require players to engage in Director >> Roulette here...to the detriment of the game. >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills -> >> >> "Detriment of the game"? Yes and No. >> >> If one or more of the three Directors gives an unLawful ruling, then >> that is to the detriment of the game. But if the three Directors >> diligently assess Law 85 disputed facts, and their three assessments >> differ, then that is the nature of the game -- a game of complexity >> where both players and also Directors may legitimately differ from >> each other's opinions. >> >> Robert Park -> >> >> [snip] >> If you disagree, please tell us how you see psychs differing from >> false-carding...acts that seems to enjoy full acceptance in our laws >> and practices. Is not the issue of fielding here the same? >> >> --Bob Park (FWIW, I rarely psych...and I don't think I have ever >> fielded a psych.) >> >> Richard Hills -> >> >> "Fielding"? No and No. >> >> Since the adoption of the 2007 Lawbook in 2008, there is no such >> infraction as "fielding". There is either a legal Law 40A3 deviation >> or an illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding. And an >> illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding remains an >> illegal Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding whether or not >> it is "fielded". "Fielding" is merely strong evidence that an illegal >> Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding exists. >> >> Likewise, over-frequent false-carding creates an illegal Law 40C1 >> undisclosed partnership understanding. What's the problem? >> > > > > The problem is that these attempts to police a self-punishing behavior > create more inequities than they resolve. > > To restate my points: > 1. Psychs are legal [an inherent part of bridge that (in my view) > spice up the game...much like preempts, weak 2-bids, and > "could-be-short" openings]. > 2. Acting on the suspicion that partner has psyched produces far more > poor results than good results. > 3. So let them psych, and let those who don't profit from others' > faulty attempts to field when there is no psych. AG : this is perhaps an ideaized view. *If* point 2 was true in practice, you'd be 100% right. But IMOBO it isn't. Let me give you an example (others are welcome to make it better if needed) : Partner, at green, opens 1S first-in-hand. You hold : AJxx-Kxx-x-KJxxx. Because of partnership history, or because of the vulnerability, or because of the state of the match, or whatever, you suspect that it might be a psyche. So, in lieu of 4D, the system bid, which would cause a disaster if partner holds a 2443 2-count, you answer 2C, knowing that, if he opened on a 2443 2-count, you're going to play a non-dangerous 2C or to let them play. If partner bids on your 2C, you'll know he holds a genuine opening bid and be able to proceed from there. Now, why should acting in this careful manner produce "more poor results than good results" ? And, because it would be nearly impossible to prove that you chose that bid for that reason, detecting fielding is sometimes very difficult ; that's perhaps the mean reason for the "phoby" on psyches. Also, one should be conscious that, without any CPU involved, fielding might involve unconscious perceptions. Thos who have this ability will make point 2 invalid without even knowing it. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111018/ab5da33c/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 18 22:57:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:57:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E9D81C1.8000106@comcast.net> Message-ID: Bob Park -> [snip] To restate my points: 1. Psychs are legal [an inherent part of bridge that (in my view) spice up the game...much like preempts, weak 2-bids, and "could-be-short" openings]. [snip] The criminals among will thus be justly punishing themselves for their own activities. What could be fairer? Richard Hills -> To restate my point (and a point also made by Steve Willner), the hoi polloi definition of "psyche" is inconsistent with the technical Law 40A3 / Law 40C1 approach to "psyches". Hence Bob's hoi polloi contradiction-in-terms, referring simultaneously to "legal" and "criminals". What's the problem? The hoi polloi definition of "psyche" incorporates both very legal Law 40A3 deviations (true psyches) and very illegal Law 73B2 gravest possible offences (pseudo-psyches).(1) That's the problem. Holmes speaking to Moriarty in The Final Problem -> If I were assured of your eventual destruction I would, in the interests of the public, cheerfully accept my own. Richard Hills -> If I were assured of blml's eventual destruction of posts about psyches / pseudo-psyches based on false premises ..... Kind regards, Richard Hills (1) The EBU regulation on Green, Amber and Red Psyches is based on likewise muddied hoi polloi thinking. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111018/b561499e/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 18 23:40:49 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:40:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E9D9912.4030008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice -> Examples of partner?s actions that may convey unauthorized information are: [snip] a significant hesitation or undue haste when calling or playing a card [snip] Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards. (See "Unauthorized Information".) Alain Gottcheiner -> [snip] There are pairs who play "very few signals", usually following with the lowest card and not helping declarer, while it is impossible to play "very few meaningful bids". [snip] Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Devil's Foot -> I have heard your reasons and regard them as unconvincing and inadequate. Richard Hills -> In my experience defenders who "refuse to help declarer by usually following with the lowest card" often _help themselves_ by smiling when they like partner's lead and frowning when they do not. And in my experience it is possible to play very few meaningful (conventional) bids with reasonable success; a few years ago I had fun and victories experimenting with the extremely natural bidding system EHAA. 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/20111018/fbbc6e6c/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 19 01:10:58 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:10:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ACAE665826B47F3877CF3563338A2CD@G3> I like EBU psych regulations. The EBU psych regulation is superior to just counting the psychs themselves. Although, even that is better than nothing. It is understandable that players balk at the "two strikes" rule but if somebody repeats the same psych several times with the same partner, then there are at least grounds for suspicion. And if the partner of the "psycher" frequently takes non-systemic avoiding action (fielding) then suspicion is exacerbated. Thus the concept of fielding provides an improved diagnostic to determine, on the balance of probability, whether a deviation is a "psych" (no agreement) or a "concealed partnership understanding". It is based on the rule of coincidence. This is a simple Bayesian test, although some label it "discredited", with no justification. Effectively, fielding is a second "psych" and the green/amber/red classifications are subjective measures of the likelihood of such a coincidence. A red psych is peculiar enough to require immediate rectification. The Green/amber/red classification provides a calibrated history of past deviations to judge future deviations by the same pair. Most director judgements are fallible and "psyching" is controversial and emotive field. So the rules should treat psychs simply and clearly. The WBF should tighten up relevant definitions, so that even ordinary players can understand the rules. This BLML discussion again illustrates that few directors understand underlying concepts and there is little consensus on the meaning of current laws and regulations. Currently, the palooka pair's crude effort is classified as a "concealed partnership understanding", whereas the world-class partnerships' subtler tacit agreement is exonerated as an "upgrade" or "treatment" or "minor deviation" or "tactical bid". We must hope that rule-makers will appreciate that this is unfair. The WBFLC should also specify a procedure for directors to investigate alleged CPUs and/or use of UI. The protocol should include the Investigation of "fielding". The EBU white book could be a sensible starting point. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 19 02:01:37 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:01:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8ACAE665826B47F3877CF3563338A2CD@G3> Message-ID: The Sign of Four -> Watson: "What do you think of this, Holmes? Sholto was, on his own confession, with his brother last night. The brother died in a fit, on which Sholto walked off with the treasure? How's that?" Holmes: "On which the dead man very considerately got up and locked the door on the inside." Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] Currently, the palooka pair's crude effort is classified as a "concealed partnership understanding", whereas the world-class partnerships' subtler tacit agreement is exonerated as an "upgrade" or "treatment" or "minor deviation" or "tactical bid". We must hope that rule-makers will appreciate that this is unfair. [snip] EBU Appeals 2009, case 13 -> Tournament Director: Sarah Amos Appeals Committee: Frances Hinden (telephone referee), Jeffrey Allerton, Graham Osborne (consultants) ...............Q53 ...............AQ82 ...............Q63 ...............962 T97642..........................8 ---.............................K94 A54.............................JT72 AT74............................KQJ53 ...............AKJ ...............JT7653 ...............K98 ...............8 Board 6 : Dealer East : EW vulnerable : Ximps to VPs West......North.....East......South ---.......---.......Pass......1H 1S........2NT(1)....Pass......4H Pass......Pass......Pass 1) Not alerted. N asked the meaning before the opening lead and was told natural. Basic systems: North-South play 4 card majors East-West play Result at table: 4H= by South, +420. Lead DA Director first called: At end of round Director's statement of facts: NS are not a regular partnership. EW suggest that N systemically intended 2NT to show a good heart raise and should have said as much before the opening lead was faced. Without anticipating good spades in dummy, West might have led a spade to trick 1. W suggests that S also may have suspected that N had a good heart raise given his major suit holdings. She did not switch to a spade at trick two, believing S to have better hearts for the 4H bid. In addition, E suggests that he might have doubled 2NT for t/o or bid 3C had the 2NT been explained differently. N and S both asserted that 2NT was natural by agreement. I asked N why he chose to bid 2NT. He said he preferred to show a balanced hand with 11 or so points and the SQ to raising partner's possible 4-card heart suit. This auction is not covered on the CC. E said that if he had been told that 2NT showed hearts he would have doubled and EW would have found their club fit. Director's ruling: Table result stands Details of ruling: A reasonably well filled CC for NS had no suggestion that 2NT was anything other than natural. Although N's actions seemed odd, both N and S expressed strongly the opinion that 2NT was natural. There is no evidence to contradict this and the TD did not believe that even a "non-agreement" alert would result in E taking different action as many pairs do play 2NT as natural. Appeal lodged by: East-West Comments by North-South: 2NT systemically natural and we both knew that. There was no reason to alert or say anything before putting dummy down. Comments by East-West: Looking at the NS hands it is obvious that N fully intended 2NT to be a good raise. When partner does not alert this he has no reason to suspect that his understanding is wrong (rather than partner's) and indeed partner's 4H bid indicates that it is more likely partner just forgot to alert rather than partner thinks it is natural. Appeals Committee decision: Director's ruling upheld Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: The AC cannot see any evidence that NS do not play 2NT as natural. Furthermore, as N is an EBU TD, he is fully aware of his responsibilities under Law 20F5, so we conclude that he did not consider 2NT to be anything other than natural. Knowing the players concerned, we find it entirely plausible both that N would bid a natural 2NT on the given hand and that S would not expect that it might be a good raise. Given that EW do not know NS as well, we are returning the deposit as we agree that simply looking at the hands it is possible that there has been some MI. Richard Hills, casebook panellist -> East-West implied an "obvious" lie by North, an EBU Director. But North's explanation of a slight mastermind in a 4-card major system with 3=4=3=3 shape is "more obvious" to me. And to me it is "tremendously obvious" that East-West are a paranoid palooka pair. 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/20111019/389db290/attachment-0001.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 02:35:28 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:35:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8ACAE665826B47F3877CF3563338A2CD@G3> References: <8ACAE665826B47F3877CF3563338A2CD@G3> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: Thus the concept of fielding provides an improved diagnostic to determine, > on the balance of probability, whether a deviation is a "psych" (no > agreement) or a "concealed partnership understanding". It is based on the > rule of coincidence. This is a simple Bayesian test, although some label > it > "discredited", with no justification. Nigel, Given that you're such the expert on all things Bayesian, care to derive a confidence bound for the results of a "test" derived from a single sample? Seriously, some of us do stats for a living... Trying to bolster your arguments by throwing around trendy words like Bayesian really isn't very impressive. -- 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/20111019/65ca0624/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Oct 19 03:29:10 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:29:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude Message-ID: L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as the partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in fact could be very different in the case of a misbid). L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret "meaning" as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the partnership understanding (which at least technically does not exist for insufficient bids). And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but there hasn't been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. If I understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. Anyway, I think it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 concerns the intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 19 03:30:42 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:30:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <8ACAE665826B47F3877CF3563338A2CD@G3> Message-ID: <9AC884EF101A40D0AC3F9ABCABEFE6DC@G3> [nige1] Thus the concept of fielding provides an improved diagnostic to determine, on the balance of probability, whether a deviation is a "psych" (no agreement) or a "concealed partnership understanding". It is based on the rule of coincidence. This is a simple Bayesian test, although some label it "discredited", with no justification. Effectively, fielding is a second "psych" and the green/amber/red classifications are subjective measures of the likelihood of such a coincidence. {Richard Wiley] Given that you're such the expert on all things Bayesian, care to derive a confidence bound for the results of a "test" derived from a single sample? Seriously, some of us do stats for a living... Trying to bolster your arguments by throwing around trendy words like Bayesian really isn't very impressive. [nige2] I don?t claim to be an arithmetician. I would be grateful if a more knowledgeable contributor would arbitrate on whether ?Bayesian? is an appropriate term for this form of inference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111019/c6c57ef2/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 04:00:55 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:00:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9AC884EF101A40D0AC3F9ABCABEFE6DC@G3> References: <8ACAE665826B47F3877CF3563338A2CD@G3> <9AC884EF101A40D0AC3F9ABCABEFE6DC@G3> Message-ID: [nige1] Thus the concept of fielding provides an improved diagnostic to determine, on the balance of probability, whether a deviation is a "psych" (no agreement) or a "concealed partnership understanding". It is based on the rule of coincidence. This is a simple Bayesian test, although some label it "discredited", with no justification. Effectively, fielding is a second "psych" and the green/amber/red classifications are subjective measures of the likelihood of such a coincidence. {Richard Wiley] Given that you're such the expert on all things Bayesian, care to derive a confidence bound for the results of a "test" derived from a single sample? Seriously, some of us do stats for a living... Trying to bolster your arguments by throwing around trendy words like Bayesian really isn't very impressive. [nige2] I don?t claim to be an arithmetician. I would be grateful if a more knowledgeable contributor would arbitrate on whether ?Bayesian? is an appropriate term for this form of inference. [Jerry] I did not know that "Bayesian" had become trendy, but I am glad to hear that someone thinks so. Is there some video or something that I missed? Have I become cool without realizing it? Personally, I have long appreciated Edward Leamer's use of the Bayesian techniques, and his approach may well be the best for this kind of situation. Back to the issue at hand, I find Nigel's contribution to this thread an appropriate use of the word Bayesian. And yes, I do this kind of thing for a living (in Mathematical finance). In response to Richard Wiley, there is nothing about a "single sample"---he probably means a sample with one observation---that precludes the calculation of a Bayesian confidence interval. You can even compute a Bayesian confidence interval before looking at any sample. I am not clear on Richard Wiley's complaint. Maybe he can clarify. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111019/23a238e8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 19 05:25:44 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:25:44 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kurt Vonnegut, "Harrison Bergeron" -> Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains..... Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] Currently, the palooka pair's crude effort is classified as a "concealed partnership understanding", whereas the world-class partnerships' subtler tacit agreement is exonerated as an "upgrade" or "treatment" or "minor deviation" or "tactical bid". We must hope that rule-makers will appreciate that this is unfair. [snip] Richard Hills -> Currently, the palooka player's crude effort of a finesse is classified as a "bottom", whereas the world-class player's subtler Vienna Coup is exonerated as a "top" or a "game swing". We must hope that rule-makers will appreciate that this is unfair. And some years ago a rule-maker did appreciate the unfairness, but with unintended consequences. Once upon a time a six-round Sunday Swiss teams in Canberra was organised in a Harrison Bergeron style. Of the 24 teams entered, eight were classified as restricted due to minimal team masterpoints. For the first half of the event, forced pairings of teams were used, so that the 8 restricted teams played only amongst themselves. Therefore, the half-time leader on 69 vps was a restricted team. For the final three matches, the non-restricted and restricted fields were merged. In round four, therefore, two lucky non-restricted contending teams played the two leading restricted teams and each duly scored a 25 vp blitz. Thanks to these bonus vps, these two non-restricted contending teams eventually finished first and second. Meanwhile, the remaining non-restricted contending teams played against each other in round four, therefore finishing unplaced. 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/20111019/5269af36/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 19 05:53:12 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:53:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] Currently, the palooka pair's crude effort is classified as a "concealed partnership understanding", whereas the world-class partnerships' subtler tacit agreement is exonerated as an "upgrade" or "treatment" or "minor deviation" or "tactical bid". We must hope that rule-makers will appreciate that this is unfair. [snip] Richard Hills -> What's the problem? Disciplinary Committees already treat ch**t*ng by world-class partnerships more severely than they treat ch**t*ng by palooka partnerships, since world-class partnerships are expected to know better and to fully understand the Proprieties. Or is Nigel arguing these scenarios: Both a world-class partnership and a palooka partnership notionally play a 15-17 1NT. (a) The palooka partnership has an undisclosed understanding to always open 1NT in third seat at favourable vulnerability with 0-6 hcp. (b) The world-class partnership has an undisclosed understanding to always downgrade a "soft" 18 hcp. In scenario (b) the key question is whether "undisclosed" actually means not disclosed. When world-class partnerships play amongst each other, upgrading and downgrading notional hcp is implicitly disclosed. Only when a world-class partnership plays against a Walter the Walrus (who rigidly applies the Milton Work high card points) do they have to convert their implicit disclosure to explicit disclosure. Sherlock Holmes -> a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111019/cd3d1663/attachment.html From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 08:17:15 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:17:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2011/10/19 Robert Frick : > L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as the > partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in fact could > be very different in the case of a misbid). > > L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret > "meaning" as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the > partnership understanding (which at least technically does not exist for > insufficient bids). > > And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but there > hasn't been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. > > L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. If I > understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. Anyway, I > think it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 concerns > the intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. An unsufficient bid or a bid out of rotation don't have a systemic meaning. You don't make agreements concerning illegal bids. Thus, the only meaning connected to these bids is the intended meaning of the bidder. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 19 10:05:42 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:05:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> > Robert Frick > L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as the > partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in fact could be > very different in the case of a misbid). > > L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret "meaning" > as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the partnership > understanding (which at least technically does not exist for insufficient bids). > > And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but there hasn't > been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. > > L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. If I > understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. Anyway, I think > it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 concerns the > intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. [Sven Pran] I strongly believe that you misinterpret Law 27B1(b)! To clarify this law it carries with it a footnote that reads: the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes This footnote must by its nature refer to the relevant partnership understandings, it makes no sense if it shall refer to the intention of a player who has (mis-)bid contrary to the partnership understandings. (The relevant partnership understanding of an illegal call must be the understanding that in the director's opinion most likely would apply had the call been legal). Also note that opponents are never entitled to knowledge of a player's actual cards (before his cards are exposed), they are only entitled to knowledge of the partnership understandings of his auction (and card signals). From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Oct 19 11:18:39 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:18:39 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra (was Veldhoven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E9E95EF.5060209@iinet.net.au> I may visit you at a table Richard. Congratulations on a brilliant ANC round Robin and good luck in the SWPT Best wishes bill On 17/10/2011 4:39 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The dates of Canberra start for Women's, Restricted and Senior (59+) > players on Wednesday 18th January. For Open players the start date is > Thursday 19th January. All events conclude on Sunday 29th January. > > The main event is the South West Pacific Teams, a Swiss of 12 x > 20-board matches, which runs from Monday 23rd January to Thursday 26th > January. > > Further details can be found at > http://www.summerfestivalofbridge.com/ > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111019/1b13993a/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 11:42:34 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:42:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <8ACAE665826B47F3877CF3563338A2CD@G3> <9AC884EF101A40D0AC3F9ABCABEFE6DC@G3> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: In response to Richard Wiley, there is nothing about a "single sample"---he > probably means a sample with one observation---that precludes the > calculation of a Bayesian confidence interval. You can even compute a > Bayesian confidence interval before looking at any sample. I am not clear > on Richard Wiley's complaint. Maybe he can clarify. > Its quite true that nothing precludes you from basing inference from a single interval. At the same time, the width of the resulting confidence bounds are going to be ridiculous. For anyone interested in Bayesian methods, the following is a bit dated, but it provides a reasonably intuitive introduction http://www.ncssm.edu/courses/math/Talks/PDFS/BullardNCTM2001.pdf -- 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/20111019/0b0f7241/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 19 13:29:49 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:29:49 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00B1506A02BB4C028599DBE6CD29D5DC@G3> [Nige1] [snip] Currently, the palooka pair's crude effort is classified as a "concealed partnership understanding", whereas the world-class partnerships' subtler tacit agreement is exonerated as an "upgrade" or "treatment" or "minor deviation" or "tactical bid". We must hope that rule-makers will appreciate that this is unfair.[/snip] [Richard Hills] What's the problem? Disciplinary Committees already treat ch**t*ng by world-class partnerships more severely than they treat ch**t*ng by palooka partnerships, since world-class partnerships are expected to know better and to fully understand the Proprieties. [Nige2] We're not discussing cheating. Directors cannot agree what the rules mean. Exploiting incomprehensible rules is hardly cheating. [Richard Hills] Or is Nigel arguing these scenarios: Both a world-class partnership and a palooka partnership notionally play a 15-17 1NT. (a) The palooka partnership has an undisclosed understanding to always open 1NT in third seat at favourable vulnerability with 0-6 hcp. (b) The world-class partnership has an undisclosed understanding to always downgrade a "soft" 18 hcp. In scenario (b) the key question is whether "undisclosed" actually means not disclosed. When world-class partnerships play amongst each other, upgrading and downgrading notional hcp is implicitly disclosed. Only when a world-class partnership plays against a Walter the Walrus (who rigidly applies the Milton Work high card points) do they have to convert their implicit disclosure to explicit disclosure. [Nige2] That is one kind of example. Many experts, who declare a 15-17 notrump, upgrade 13 and 14 counts. A few downgrade 18 and 19 counts. Very few do both. All this may depend in obscure ways on seat and vulnerability. Many gain an extra edge from their reluctance to disclose such proclivities, especially to lesser opponents. In this and other contexts, "Just Bridge" is a popular Mantra. Another expert favourite is the "Tactical bid", for example the "psychic" trial bid, splinter, exclusion bid, or whatever. These may exploit a subtle facet of their system that acts as a *psychic control* (for example, Drury). Usually, the habits of each member of the partnership differ. Some rationalise such understandings as treatments or deviations. Again, the rules are lax and unclear. Scope for such ploys is limited only by the ingenuity of the pair . [Sherlock Holmes] A man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. [Nige2] Most players experience at the Bridge table differs from Sherlock's. You hardly ever suffer from excessive disclosure of relevant information by opponents. Prevarication and economy with the truth is common and often causes damage. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 19 14:03:33 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:03:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E9EBC95.2080609@ulb.ac.be> Le 18/10/2011 23:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > WBF Code of Practice -> > > > Alain Gottcheiner -> > > [snip] > There are pairs who play "very few signals", usually following with > the lowest card and not helping declarer, while it is impossible to > play "very few meaningful bids". > [snip] > > Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Devil's Foot -> > > I have heard your reasons and regard them as unconvincing and inadequate. > > Richard Hills -> > > In my experience defenders who "refuse to help declarer by usually > following with the lowest card" often _help themselves_ by smiling > when they like partner's lead and frowning when they do not. > AG : I suppose I'm allowed to feel insulted. (and a whole group of great players in Liege too) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111019/4037a59e/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 16:05:15 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:05:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Elementary, Watson [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E9EBC95.2080609@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E9EBC95.2080609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E9ED91B.3050508@gmail.com> On 10/19/2011 08:03 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 18/10/2011 23:40, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> >> In my experience defenders who "refuse to help declarer by usually >> following with the lowest card" often _help themselves_ by smiling >> when they like partner's lead and frowning when they do not. >> > AG : I suppose I'm allowed to feel insulted. > (and a whole group of great players in Liege too) > Join those of us who like Roman (odd/even) carding. Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 20 02:47:33 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:47:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:17:15 -0400, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2011/10/19 Robert Frick : >> L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as >> the >> partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in fact could >> be very different in the case of a misbid). >> >> L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret >> "meaning" as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the >> partnership understanding (which at least technically does not exist for >> insufficient bids). >> >> And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but there >> hasn't been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. >> >> L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. If I >> understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. Anyway, I >> think it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 >> concerns >> the intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. > > An unsufficient bid or a bid out of rotation don't have a systemic > meaning. You don't make agreements concerning illegal bids. > Thus, the only meaning connected to these bids is the intended meaning > of the bidder. Well, that's not true, there is also the meaning that partner gives the bid. But right, everyone seems to agree on L26 using the infractors intended meaning. But... A player opens 2D out of turn. The bid is withdrawn, RHO opens some bid, and the player now passes. For L26 purposes, which suit is specified by the 2D opening out of turn. I asked on player today, and he said if their card shows that the two diamond opening is weak, the withdrawn call signified diamonds. You, and apparently everyone on blml, would realize that you have to find out what the player intended by the 2D opening. He may have misbid, right? In other words, he uses the L40 measning. So the question is if the position people take depends on which question is asked first. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 20 03:03:19 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:03:19 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> Message-ID: On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:05:42 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as >> the >> partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in fact could > be >> very different in the case of a misbid). >> >> L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret > "meaning" >> as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the partnership >> understanding (which at least technically does not exist for >> insufficient > bids). >> >> And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but there > hasn't >> been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. >> >> L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. If I >> understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. Anyway, I > think >> it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 concerns the >> intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. > > [Sven Pran] I strongly believe that you misinterpret Law 27B1(b)! > To clarify this law it carries with it a footnote that reads: > > the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of > what > it shows and what it excludes > > This footnote must by its nature refer to the relevant partnership > understandings, it makes no sense if it shall refer to the intention of a > player who has (mis-)bid contrary to the partnership understandings. (The > relevant partnership understanding of an illegal call must be the > understanding that in the director's opinion most likely would apply had > the > call been legal). 1S 2C 2C How does the world change to make the second 2C bid legal? That idea makes no sense to me. I think you have created an idiosyncratic position that no one holds. Second choice is that what you are saying doesn't correspond to what you do. But I would be interested to hear more about this idea, and I think it could be transformed in to a workable idea. > > Also note that opponents are never entitled to knowledge of a player's > actual cards (before his cards are exposed), they are only entitled to > knowledge of the partnership understandings of his auction (and card > signals). Yes, but..... Of the people who have offered an opinion, everyone says that the ruling is based on intended meaning. That ruling would reveal what the player meant. You are, of course, welcome to disagree with them. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 20 03:20:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:20:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 -- what does "specify" really mean? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I came up with the same answers as the player I asked. So maybe there will be consensus on this. Problem #1. A player opens, or tries to open, a Precision 2D. This shows a singleton diamond and either 4-4-1-4 distrtbution or 4-4-0-5. This bid is withdrawn, for whatever reason. What is the specified suit or suits, if any? Problem. #2. The auction is 2H P 3H X P 2NT The player changes his 2NT to a pass. Being a good director, you ask the intended meaning of the 2NT call, and the player intended it as natural. Hence it shows a heart stopper. And presumably not 5 spades, but that's a negative inference. What is the specified suit or suits, if any? From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 20 08:54:39 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:54:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> Message-ID: <000301cc8ef5$23449290$69cdb7b0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:05:42 -0400, Sven Pran > wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as > >> the partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in > >> fact could > > be > >> very different in the case of a misbid). > >> > >> L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret > > "meaning" > >> as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the partnership > >> understanding (which at least technically does not exist for > >> insufficient > > bids). > >> > >> And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but > >> there > > hasn't > >> been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. > >> > >> L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. > >> If I understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. > >> Anyway, I > > think > >> it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 concerns > >> the intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. > > > > [Sven Pran] I strongly believe that you misinterpret Law 27B1(b)! > > To clarify this law it carries with it a footnote that reads: > > > > the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of > > what it shows and what it excludes > > > > This footnote must by its nature refer to the relevant partnership > > understandings, it makes no sense if it shall refer to the intention > > of a player who has (mis-)bid contrary to the partnership > > understandings. (The relevant partnership understanding of an illegal > > call must be the understanding that in the director's opinion most > > likely would apply had the call been legal). > > 1S 2C 2C > > How does the world change to make the second 2C bid legal? That idea > makes no sense to me. [Sven Pran] In this situation the most likely situations are that the offender overlooked the intervening 2C bid and bid 2C over 1S, or alternatively that he misbid and intended to bid 3C over the intervening 2C bid. In either case the Director shall treat the insufficient bid according to the applicable partnership understanding for the alternative he judges to be correct. > I think you have created an idiosyncratic position that no one holds. > Second choice is that what you are saying doesn't correspond to what you > do. But I would be interested to hear more about this idea, and I think it > could be transformed in to a workable idea. > > > > > Also note that opponents are never entitled to knowledge of a player's > > actual cards (before his cards are exposed), they are only entitled to > > knowledge of the partnership understandings of his auction (and card > > signals). > > Yes, but..... Of the people who have offered an opinion, everyone says that > the ruling is based on intended meaning. That ruling would reveal what the > player meant. You are, of course, welcome to disagree with them. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 20 09:06:35 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:06:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 -- what does "specify" really mean? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000401cc8ef6$cf176e20$6d464a60$@online.no> > Robert Frick > I came up with the same answers as the player I asked. So maybe there will > be consensus on this. > > Problem #1. A player opens, or tries to open, a Precision 2D. This shows a > singleton diamond and either 4-4-1-4 distrtbution or 4-4-0-5. This bid is > withdrawn, for whatever reason. What is the specified suit or suits, if any? [Sven Pran] For the purpose of Law 26 this 2D bid relates to the three specified suits outside Diamonds so declarer may apply Law 26A naming one of these three suits (unless it is not shown also with a legal call during the auction). > > Problem. #2. The auction is > > 2H P 3H X > P 2NT > > The player changes his 2NT to a pass. Being a good director, you ask the > intended meaning of the 2NT call, and the player intended it as natural. > Hence it shows a heart stopper. And presumably not 5 spades, but that's a > negative inference. What is the specified suit or suits, if any? [Sven Pran] This 2NT bid did not relate to any specific suit so Law 26B applies. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Oct 20 13:59:18 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:59:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <000301cc8ef5$23449290$69cdb7b0$@online.no> References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <000301cc8ef5$23449290$69cdb7b0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:54:39 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:05:42 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as >> >> the partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in >> >> fact could >> > be >> >> very different in the case of a misbid). >> >> >> >> L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret >> > "meaning" >> >> as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the partnership >> >> understanding (which at least technically does not exist for >> >> insufficient >> > bids). >> >> >> >> And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but >> >> there >> > hasn't >> >> been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. >> >> >> >> L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. >> >> If I understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. >> >> Anyway, I >> > think >> >> it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 concerns >> >> the intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] I strongly believe that you misinterpret Law 27B1(b)! >> > To clarify this law it carries with it a footnote that reads: >> > >> > the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of >> > what it shows and what it excludes >> > >> > This footnote must by its nature refer to the relevant partnership >> > understandings, it makes no sense if it shall refer to the intention >> > of a player who has (mis-)bid contrary to the partnership >> > understandings. (The relevant partnership understanding of an illegal >> > call must be the understanding that in the director's opinion most >> > likely would apply had the call been legal). >> >> 1S 2C 2C >> >> How does the world change to make the second 2C bid legal? That idea >> makes no sense to me. > > [Sven Pran] In this situation the most likely situations are that the > offender overlooked the intervening 2C bid and bid 2C over 1S, or > alternatively that he misbid and intended to bid 3C over the intervening > 2C > bid. > > In either case the Director shall treat the insufficient bid according to > the applicable partnership understanding for the alternative he judges > to be > correct. So you apply the applicable partnership understandings using the auction as the player viewed it, correcting for whatever problem caused the insufficient bid. That's what I guessed you meant. This is a good formulation. One problem. If the player did not see the 2C bid, and meant his own 2C bid as natural, intending to later support spades, and forgot that they were playing Drury, the player can correct to 3C (showing about or exactly the same thing as Drury). I would have taken the bidder aside, found out what he thought his bid meant, and never looked at the convention card or whatever to verify that the player had not misbid. You have been clear that your answer here applies only to L27. It does not seem to easily apply to illegal doubles, right? So then does L26 revert back to intended meaning? Or do you want a very complex reading of some very simple sentences? From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Oct 20 14:06:31 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:06:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> Message-ID: <4EA00EC7.7050100@aol.com> Sven wrote "had the call been legal". This is a conjunctive or subjunctive or whatever it is called in English. Is this no longer used in the USA? The "if" shows that it is not legal but calls attention to what would have been the case were it (another subjunctive) legal. Did you not understand this? Ciao, JE Am 20.10.2011 03:03, schrieb Robert Frick: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:05:42 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > >>> Robert Frick >>> L40 makes reference to "meaning". I think everyone interprets that as >>> the >>> partnership understanding, not the intended meaning (which in fact could >> be >>> very different in the case of a misbid). >>> >>> L27B1(b) also references the meaning of a bid. Here, we interpret >> "meaning" >>> as being the opposite -- the intended meaning, not the partnership >>> understanding (which at least technically does not exist for >>> insufficient >> bids). >>> And I believe that "intended meaning" is not exactly correct, but there >> hasn't >>> been any clarification on this, right? But that's off-topic. >>> >>> L26 does not use the word "meaning". But it talks about specifying. If I >>> understand Eric's argument correctly, this requires meaning. Anyway, I >> think >>> it does. And the only opinion expressed on BLML is that L26 concerns the >>> intended meaning of the withdrawn bid. >> [Sven Pran] I strongly believe that you misinterpret Law 27B1(b)! >> To clarify this law it carries with it a footnote that reads: >> >> the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of >> what >> it shows and what it excludes >> >> This footnote must by its nature refer to the relevant partnership >> understandings, it makes no sense if it shall refer to the intention of a >> player who has (mis-)bid contrary to the partnership understandings. (The >> relevant partnership understanding of an illegal call must be the >> understanding that in the director's opinion most likely would apply had >> the >> call been legal). > 1S 2C 2C > > How does the world change to make the second 2C bid legal? That idea makes > no sense to me. > > I think you have created an idiosyncratic position that no one holds. > Second choice is that what you are saying doesn't correspond to what you > do. But I would be interested to hear more about this idea, and I think it > could be transformed in to a workable idea. > >> Also note that opponents are never entitled to knowledge of a player's >> actual cards (before his cards are exposed), they are only entitled to >> knowledge of the partnership understandings of his auction (and card >> signals). > Yes, but..... Of the people who have offered an opinion, everyone says > that the ruling is based on intended meaning. That ruling would reveal > what the player meant. You are, of course, welcome to disagree with them. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Oct 20 15:34:18 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:34:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:17:15 -0400, Harald Skj?ran > wrote: > >> An unsufficient bid or a bid out of rotation don't have a systemic >> meaning. You don't make agreements concerning illegal bids. >> Thus, the only meaning connected to these bids is the intended >> meaning >> of the bidder. > > Well, that's not true, there is also the meaning that partner gives > the > bid. But right, everyone seems to agree on L26 using the infractors > intended meaning. But... > > A player opens 2D out of turn. The bid is withdrawn, RHO opens some > bid, > and the player now passes. For L26 purposes, which suit is > specified by > the 2D opening out of turn. I asked on player today, and he said if > their > card shows that the two diamond opening is weak, the withdrawn call > signified diamonds. > > You, and apparently everyone on blml, would realize that you have > to find > out what the player intended by the 2D opening. He may have misbid, > right? > In other words, he uses the L40 measning. > > So the question is if the position people take depends on which > question > is asked first. I don't understand the example. Why wouldn't an out-of-turn opening bid mean the same thing as an in-turn opening bid? Except in the totally improbable case where a 2D opening by the dealer would mean something different from a 2D opening in second seat after RHO's pass, why would anything need to be asked or answered here? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Oct 20 18:23:53 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:23:53 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <000301cc8ef5$23449290$69cdb7b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001301cc8f44$ab8526c0$028f7440$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:54:39 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick [...] > You have been clear that your answer here applies only to L27. It does not > seem to easily apply to illegal doubles, right? So then does L26 revert back to > intended meaning? Or do you want a very complex reading of some very > simple sentences? [Sven Pran] A withdrawn double leads directly to Law 26B unless it is clear from partnership understandings that it related to one or more specific (but not all four) suits. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 03:22:18 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:22:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <4EA00EC7.7050100@aol.com> References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <4EA00EC7.7050100@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:06:31 -0400, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Sven wrote "had the call been legal". This is a conjunctive or > subjunctive or whatever it is called in English. Is this no longer used > in the USA? The "if" shows that it is not legal but calls attention to > what would have been the case were it (another subjunctive) legal. Did > you not understand this? It was more a matter of it being so meaningless. My best attempt at a short answer. On the auction 1S 2D 2C the 2C bid would have been legal had the opponent not bid 2D. Using this, we can determine a meaning (via partnership agreement) of the 2C bid. Of course, the 2C would have been legal if the opponent had doubled or bid 1NT. That leaves 3 possible meanings "had the 2C bid been legal" and Sven's formulation does not explain how to choose among them. Of course, 2C would be legal if clubs was higher than diamonds. That's four. When a Blackwood 4NT is answered 4H (from an actual auction), that bid would have been legal if the player had gotten the level right. So it would have been legal if 4H was changed to 5H. Or changed to 5S or 5C or 7NT or a variety of other calls. So, Sven's formulation leads to a bewildering array of possibilities. I can add many more if you want. Sven's formulation does not provide any method of distinguishing between them. I can give a longer answer if you want me to get into the philosophy of hypotheticals. I am pretty sure Sven wants to crawl inside the mind of the insufficient bidder, find out why the bid was insufficient, and go from there. But none of that is actually in Sven's formulation. In fact, it is all inside my head, I guess I have no idea of knowing what Sven was thinking, if anything. (And that will be pretty close to "intended bid", which Sven did not like, and maybe better.) To actually answer your question, When we say "What would the US be like if marijuana use was legal" people usually mean if there was no law against it. And if we ask how fast people would drive on the expressway if it was legal to go as fast as they wanted, people usually mean there are no laws against speeding. And that's a general principle. My mind was boggled by the thought of what insufficient bids would mean if they were legal. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 03:47:14 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:14 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <001301cc8f44$ab8526c0$028f7440$@online.no> References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <000301cc8ef5$23449290$69cdb7b0$@online.no> <001301cc8f44$ab8526c0$028f7440$@online.no> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:23:53 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:54:39 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick > [...] >> You have been clear that your answer here applies only to L27. It does >> not >> seem to easily apply to illegal doubles, right? So then does L26 revert > back to >> intended meaning? Or do you want a very complex reading of some very >> simple sentences? > > [Sven Pran] A withdrawn double leads directly to Law 26B unless it is > clear > from partnership understandings that it related to one or more specific > (but > not all four) suits. So it seems that your default is -- a double and no trump do not indicate suits and the suits indicate the suits named. (You use the word "unless"; I am now talking about what happens when that unless is not triggered) This ironically is the position that Eric L in a way rejected -- he said that a 2D bid by itself does not indicate diamonds and that it was mandatory to consider the meaning of the 2D bid. So for him, your "unless" condition is always triggered. He would say we do not consider a double by itself but instead must look at the meaning of the double. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 04:03:00 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:03:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:34:18 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:17:15 -0400, Harald Skj?ran >> wrote: >> >>> An unsufficient bid or a bid out of rotation don't have a systemic >>> meaning. You don't make agreements concerning illegal bids. >>> Thus, the only meaning connected to these bids is the intended >>> meaning >>> of the bidder. >> >> Well, that's not true, there is also the meaning that partner gives >> the >> bid. But right, everyone seems to agree on L26 using the infractors >> intended meaning. But... >> >> A player opens 2D out of turn. The bid is withdrawn, RHO opens some >> bid, >> and the player now passes. For L26 purposes, which suit is >> specified by >> the 2D opening out of turn. I asked on player today, and he said if >> their >> card shows that the two diamond opening is weak, the withdrawn call >> signified diamonds. >> >> You, and apparently everyone on blml, would realize that you have >> to find >> out what the player intended by the 2D opening. He may have misbid, >> right? >> In other words, he uses the L40 measning. >> >> So the question is if the position people take depends on which >> question >> is asked first. > > I don't understand the example. Why wouldn't an out-of-turn opening > bid mean the same thing as an in-turn opening bid? Except in the > totally improbable case where a 2D opening by the dealer would mean > something different from a 2D opening in second seat after RHO's > pass, why would anything need to be asked or answered here? One problem is how you determine the meaning of the withdrawn bid. I don't think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a second problem. Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that meaning specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what suits it was "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits are specfied by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 21 05:02:21 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:02:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Edward Josiah Stears, Notes on Uncle Tom's Cabin (1853), page 46 -> "Father," said one of the rising generation to his paternal progenitor, "if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how many legs would she have?" "Why five, to be sure." "Why, no, father; would _calling_ it a leg _make_ it one?" Robert Frick -> [snip] I hope I count as a lurker for this. I tend to ask questions and then formulate opinions later. [snip] Richard Hills -> Would _calling_ Bob a lurker _make_ him one? Would _calling_ a pre-existing undisclosed explicit or implicit partnership understanding grossly deviating from revealed notional methods a Red Psyche _make_ it a psyche? 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/20111021/f99c7141/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 21 06:11:22 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:11:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Richard Hills] Would _calling_ Bob a lurker _make_ him one? Would _calling_ a pre-existing undisclosed explicit or implicit partnership understanding grossly deviating from revealed notional methods a Red Psyche _make_ it a psyche? [Nigel] My impression is that the excellent EBU protocol is the other way around. Each psych is colour-coded, according to the director's judgement of the likelihood that it could be subject to a CPU. Green if unfielded, Amber if mildly suspicious, Red if more suspicious. Psychs are recorded and a history of repetition of the same psych with the same partner increases its wave-length. The director, reluctantly acts if he judges that it could well be a CPU. But It's just judgement. After all this, the alleged perpetrator may, in fact, be innocent of a CPU -- a red psych may still be a psych. I would be interested in whether either Richard (Hills or Willey) can devise a fairer procedure (to both sides), without employing truth-serum or water-boarding, From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 21 10:17:05 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:17:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <4EA00EC7.7050100@aol.com> Message-ID: <001001cc8fc9$d2a3cb50$77eb61f0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:06:31 -0400, Jeff Easterson > wrote: > > > Sven wrote "had the call been legal". This is a conjunctive or > > subjunctive or whatever it is called in English. Is this no longer > > used in the USA? The "if" shows that it is not legal but calls > > attention to what would have been the case were it (another > > subjunctive) legal. Did you not understand this? > > It was more a matter of it being so meaningless. My best attempt at a short > answer. > > On the auction > > 1S 2D 2C > > the 2C bid would have been legal had the opponent not bid 2D. Using this, > we can determine a meaning (via partnership agreement) of the 2C bid. > > Of course, the 2C would have been legal if the opponent had doubled or bid > 1NT. That leaves 3 possible meanings "had the 2C bid been legal" and Sven's > formulation does not explain how to choose among them. > > Of course, 2C would be legal if clubs was higher than diamonds. That's four. > > When a Blackwood 4NT is answered 4H (from an actual auction), that bid > would have been legal if the player had gotten the level right. So it would > have been legal if 4H was changed to 5H. Or changed to 5S or 5C or 7NT or a > variety of other calls. > > So, Sven's formulation leads to a bewildering array of possibilities. I can add > many more if you want. Sven's formulation does not provide any method of > distinguishing between them. > > I can give a longer answer if you want me to get into the philosophy of > hypotheticals. > > I am pretty sure Sven wants to crawl inside the mind of the insufficient > bidder, find out why the bid was insufficient, and go from there. But none of > that is actually in Sven's formulation. In fact, it is all inside my head, I guess I > have no idea of knowing what Sven was thinking, if anything. (And that will > be pretty close to "intended bid", which Sven did not like, and maybe > better.) > > > To actually answer your question, When we say "What would the US be like if > marijuana use was legal" people usually mean if there was no law against it. > And if we ask how fast people would drive on the expressway if it was legal > to go as fast as they wanted, people usually mean there are no laws against > speeding. And that's a general principle. My mind was boggled by the > thought of what insufficient bids would mean if they were legal. [Sven Pran] There are those who (only) look for problems and failures, and there are those who look for solutions. What kind of a person are you? On the auction: 1S 2D 2C the most likely reasons are that the IB has either overlooked the intervening 2D bid or simply misbid 2C for 3C. Can we agree that the alternatives of 2C being higher than 2D, had the opponent doubled or bid 1NT, and so on are simply plain rubbish? And similarly on the answer 4H to Blackwood 4NT all mentioning of 5S, 5C or 7NT are just to make up problems? Please be serious if you want a serious discussion. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 21 10:24:50 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:24:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001101cc8fca$e799bdc0$b6cd3940$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...]> One problem is how you determine the meaning of the withdrawn bid. I > don't think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a second > problem. > Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that > meaning specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what suits it was > "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits are specfied > by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? [Sven Pran] Law 26A begins: if the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit) The multi 2D opening bid does in itself by agreement not relate to any specific suit. Instead it relates to a number of alternative suits, or to no suit at all. Thus the condition for applying Law 26A is not satisfied and Law 26B must be applied instead. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 21 11:30:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:30:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA13BBA.2040202@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/10/2011 5:02, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Edward Josiah Stears, Notes on Uncle Tom's Cabin (1853), page 46 -> > > "Father," said one of the rising generation to his paternal > progenitor, "if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how many legs > would she have?" "Why five, to be sure." "Why, no, father; would > _calling_ it a leg _make_ it one?" > AG : I agree only partially. If we define a thingummycow as any long appendage from a cow's body containing bones, then a cow has five thingummycows. Why can't it be the same if we use the word "leg" ? There are in fact two ways of checking properties and names : a) based on common experience b) based on a definition The child claims that a) is to be preferred ; lawyers and mathematicians would disagree. In mathematics, a ring is a set endowed with two operations meeting some properties. The child would disagree that the set of rational numbers is a ring, because it doesn't look like his mother's ring, but a ring it is in that context, because it meets all criteria. Since ruling about bridge events uses laws, b) is to be preferred. > > Robert Frick -> > > [snip] > I hope I count as a lurker for this. I tend to ask questions and then > formulate opinions later. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > Would _calling_ Bob a lurker _make_ him one? > > Would _calling_ a pre-existing undisclosed explicit or implicit > partnership understanding grossly deviating from revealed notional > methods a Red Psyche _make_ it a psyche? > > AG : for the reasons mentioned above, if said deviation met the requirements for being classified as a psyche, then it would be a psyche. No more, no less. What you don't mention is whether this "calling" is by means of common experience or law. If the latter, then the answer is to the positive. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111021/9e806c65/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 21 15:37:47 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:37:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA175AB.6050600@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/10/2011 5:02, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Edward Josiah Stears, Notes on Uncle Tom's Cabin (1853), page 46 -> > > "Father," said one of the rising generation to his paternal > progenitor, "if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how many legs > would she have?" "Why five, to be sure." "Why, no, father; would > _calling_ it a leg _make_ it one?" > > Robert Frick -> > > [snip] > I hope I count as a lurker for this. I tend to ask questions and then > formulate opinions later. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > Would _calling_ Bob a lurker _make_ him one? > > Would _calling_ a pre-existing undisclosed explicit or implicit > partnership understanding grossly deviating from revealed notional > methods a Red Psyche _make_ it a psyche? > > AG : after due reflection, I think I'm able to answer this question : We are on two different grounds here. If a Red Psyche was a call that was too well understood by partner, it would make it a CPU and by the same token the bid would no more be a psyche. But a Red Psyche is a call that was *possibly* too well understood (the word suspicion is used in the definition ; other possible explanations do exist in many cases), whence there is no certainty that it wasn't a psyche after all. Now there is another question : is it good that a suspicion (albeit possibly strong) makes you laible to a penalty ? Since some other laws explicitly speak in that way ("could have known"), it is lawful, but is it fair ? Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111021/6c9a6ad5/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 21 15:44:21 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:44:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8649EFE0-5C35-4919-83DB-1980A838A6BD@starpower.net> On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:34:18 -0400, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> I don't understand the example. Why wouldn't an out-of-turn opening >> bid mean the same thing as an in-turn opening bid? Except in the >> totally improbable case where a 2D opening by the dealer would mean >> something different from a 2D opening in second seat after RHO's >> pass, why would anything need to be asked or answered here? > > One problem is how you determine the meaning of the withdrawn bid. > I don't > think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a second > problem. > Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that > meaning > specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what suits it was > "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits are > specfied by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? A good question. I want to say spades, hearts and clubs. "Shows four" and "shows four or five" obviously qualify as "specifying". But what about "shows zero or one" -- is "specifying shortness" in a suit the same as "specifying" the suit itself? Consider the auction 1S-P-4C, where 4C is a splinter bid promising spade support and short clubs: does it specify only spades, or spades and clubs? The problem arises because L26A seems to treat a call which is "related to a specified suit" as synonymous with a call that "specifies" the suit to which it is related, but they are not the same thing in everyday English. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 21 15:53:32 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:53:32 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <8649EFE0-5C35-4919-83DB-1980A838A6BD@starpower.net> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <8649EFE0-5C35-4919-83DB-1980A838A6BD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <434B5981-E47A-4F1A-A4E1-6B3564F3C375@starpower.net> On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:44 AM, I wrote: > On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:34:18 -0400, Eric Landau >> wrote: >> >>> I don't understand the example. Why wouldn't an out-of-turn opening >>> bid mean the same thing as an in-turn opening bid? Except in the >>> totally improbable case where a 2D opening by the dealer would mean >>> something different from a 2D opening in second seat after RHO's >>> pass, why would anything need to be asked or answered here? >> >> One problem is how you determine the meaning of the withdrawn bid. >> I don't >> think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a second >> problem. >> Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that >> meaning >> specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what suits it was >> "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits are >> specfied by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? > > A good question. I want to say spades, hearts and clubs. "Shows > four" and "shows four or five" obviously qualify as "specifying". > But what about "shows zero or one" -- is "specifying shortness" in a > suit the same as "specifying" the suit itself? Consider the auction > 1S-P-4C, where 4C is a splinter bid promising spade support and short > clubs: does it specify only spades, or spades and clubs? The problem > arises because L26A seems to treat a call which is "related to a > specified suit" as synonymous with a call that "specifies" the suit > to which it is related, but they are not the same thing in everyday > English. I should add that the reason I fail to understand Bob's original example is that I do not see how any of the above has anything at all to do with whether the bid in question is in turn or out of turn. Whatever a Roman 2D OBOOT specifies, it can be any different from what it would specify were the bidder in fact the dealer, or if RHO had passed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Oct 21 16:16:58 2011 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:16:58 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <4EA17DEE.8020209@aol.com> References: <4EA17DEE.8020209@aol.com> Message-ID: <4EA17EDA.4010509@aol.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111021/ae700167/attachment.html From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Oct 21 18:49:06 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:49:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <4EA17EDA.4010509@aol.com> References: <4EA17DEE.8020209@aol.com> <4EA17EDA.4010509@aol.com> Message-ID: <853BE9E2-87F6-4C9A-9F7E-58A5D43218DA@starpower.net> On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Von: Jeff Easterson > > Am 21.10.2011 03:22, schrieb Robert Frick: > > > I am pretty sure Sven wants to crawl inside the mind of the > insufficient > bidder, find out why the bid was insufficient, and > go from there. But none > of that is actually in Sven's > formulation. In fact, it is all inside my > head, I guess I have no > idea of knowing what Sven was thinking, if > anything. (And that > will be pretty close to "intended bid", which Sven did > not like, > and maybe better.) > > Sven was thinking, "if the bid had been legal" what would have been > the meaning? Is there anyone other than you who has a problem with > this? Bob's problem is that, absent any context, "if the bid had been legal" can resolved in an arbitrarily large number of different ways, which would make the phrase useless for any practical application. But this discussion is not context-free, and an obvious resolution suggests itself when context is taken into accoiunt. We can presume that a player making an (illegal) bid (mis-) perceived it to be legal at the time he made it (a player who makes an illegal bid deliberately commits a far more grievous offense than simply bidding insufficiently or out of turn). That means that if the conditions of the deal and the preceding auction had been what the bidder thought they were, then the bid *would have* been legal. That is the only such set of circumstances that distinguishes itself from the myriad other possibilities that "would have made the bid legal", and the only one that provides a specific enough basis for us to make the determinations as to meaning that the laws require us to. Which is why, as Jeff asserts, we don't generally have a problem with this interpretation. And there is, of course, no need to "crawl inside the minde of the... bidder" to decide what he thought the conditiions of the deal and the preceding auction were when he made his (incorrectly thought to be legal) bid, as he is right there in front of us and we can simply ask him. Perhaps I'm naive, but I've been doing that for over 45 years since I first started directing, and don't believe I've ever gotten anything but a straight-out truthful answer. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 21:09:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:09:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <001101cc8fca$e799bdc0$b6cd3940$@online.no> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <001101cc8fca$e799bdc0$b6cd3940$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:24:50 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...]> One problem is how you determine the meaning of the withdrawn > bid. I >> don't think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a second >> problem. >> Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that >> meaning specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what suits it > was >> "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits are > specfied >> by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? > > [Sven Pran] Law 26A begins: if the withdrawn call related solely to a > specified suit or suits (and no other suit) > > The multi 2D opening bid does in itself by agreement not relate to any > specific suit. Instead it relates to a number of alternative suits, or > to no > suit at all. Thus the condition for applying Law 26A is not satisfied and > Law 26B must be applied instead. So -- And I am just asking the quesetion -- if a call shows spades and a minor, then for L26 purposes you take that call as speficing (or relating to) just spades. Correct? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 21:38:55 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:38:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <001001cc8fc9$d2a3cb50$77eb61f0$@online.no> References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <4EA00EC7.7050100@aol.com> <001001cc8fc9$d2a3cb50$77eb61f0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:17:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > [Sven Pran] There are those who (only) look for problems and failures, > and > there are those who look for solutions. What kind of a person are you? That's a really important question. Thank you for asking. The laws are, on the technical level, somewhat incompetent. Too incompetent. We deserve better. Solving that problem requires two things. 1. Realizing that there is a problem 2. Finding a solution to the problem. The second step seems fairly simple. Easy, costs little to nothing, obvious that it would help. You put out planned laws and see if anyone finds a problem. Or, is someone finds a problem, you fix it, but that is harder. That leaves the first step. So, yes, I am here to rub your nose in the fact that there are problems with the laws. I don't want to make things sound worse than they are. I am asking people to have an honest opinion. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 21:54:07 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:54:07 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <001001cc8fc9$d2a3cb50$77eb61f0$@online.no> References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <4EA00EC7.7050100@aol.com> <001001cc8fc9$d2a3cb50$77eb61f0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:17:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:06:31 -0400, Jeff Easterson >> wrote: >> >> > Sven wrote "had the call been legal". This is a conjunctive or >> > subjunctive or whatever it is called in English. Is this no longer >> > used in the USA? The "if" shows that it is not legal but calls >> > attention to what would have been the case were it (another >> > subjunctive) legal. Did you not understand this? >> >> It was more a matter of it being so meaningless. My best attempt at a > short >> answer. >> >> On the auction >> >> 1S 2D 2C >> >> the 2C bid would have been legal had the opponent not bid 2D. Using >> this, >> we can determine a meaning (via partnership agreement) of the 2C bid. >> >> Of course, the 2C would have been legal if the opponent had doubled or >> bid >> 1NT. That leaves 3 possible meanings "had the 2C bid been legal" and > Sven's >> formulation does not explain how to choose among them. >> >> Of course, 2C would be legal if clubs was higher than diamonds. That's > four. >> >> When a Blackwood 4NT is answered 4H (from an actual auction), that bid >> would have been legal if the player had gotten the level right. So it > would >> have been legal if 4H was changed to 5H. Or changed to 5S or 5C or 7NT >> or > a >> variety of other calls. >> >> So, Sven's formulation leads to a bewildering array of possibilities. I > can add >> many more if you want. Sven's formulation does not provide any method of >> distinguishing between them. >> >> I can give a longer answer if you want me to get into the philosophy of >> hypotheticals. >> >> I am pretty sure Sven wants to crawl inside the mind of the insufficient >> bidder, find out why the bid was insufficient, and go from there. But >> none > of >> that is actually in Sven's formulation. In fact, it is all inside my >> head, > I guess I >> have no idea of knowing what Sven was thinking, if anything. (And that > will >> be pretty close to "intended bid", which Sven did not like, and maybe >> better.) >> >> >> To actually answer your question, When we say "What would the US be like > if >> marijuana use was legal" people usually mean if there was no law against > it. >> And if we ask how fast people would drive on the expressway if it was > legal >> to go as fast as they wanted, people usually mean there are no laws > against >> speeding. And that's a general principle. My mind was boggled by the >> thought of what insufficient bids would mean if they were legal. > > [Sven Pran] There are those who (only) look for problems and failures, > and > there are those who look for solutions. What kind of a person are you? > > On the auction: 1S 2D 2C the most likely reasons are that the IB has > either overlooked the intervening 2D bid or simply misbid 2C for 3C. Can > we > agree that the alternatives of 2C being higher than 2D, had the opponent > doubled or bid 1NT, and so on are simply plain rubbish? And similarly on > the > answer 4H to Blackwood 4NT all mentioning of 5S, 5C or 7NT are just to > make > up problems? > > Please be serious if you want a serious discussion. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 21:58:35 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:58:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] declarer's played card (L45C2(a)) Message-ID: The facts were agreed. The 5 of clubs dropped out of declarer's hand as she was going to play the ace. The ace wasn't yet played and the 5 of clubs was on the table. I got the lawbook and read the relevant law to the table. "Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table." Everyone knew what that meant and I hardly even had to make a ruling! Just joking. Of course, the sentence itself is syntactically ambiguous. After straightening that out [probably?], I ruled that it was a player card. Declarer was quite angry. I don't think I have ever had to make that ruling before. Nonetheless, five minutes later, I got the same call at another table. I made the same ruling, only much faster. Declarer, also a director and nice person, graciously accepted the ruling. Then he asked later what would happen if he dropped a card out of his hand when it wasn't his turn to play. Usually, my criterion is if the card looked played. No one thought the card looked played. Maybe the law could be changed to that for the next edition, to make a positive suggestion. Um, why is a famously ambiguous phrase from the 1997 laws still syntactically ambiguous? From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Oct 21 22:19:12 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:19:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?declarer=27s_played_card_=28L45C2=28a=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RHLYe-2AKOG00@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Von: "Robert Frick" > The facts were agreed. The 5 of clubs dropped out of declarer's hand > as she was going to play the ace. The ace wasn't yet played and the 5 > of clubs was on the table. > > I got the lawbook and read the relevant law to the table. "Declarer > must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or > nearly touching the table." I'm quite sure, you did not read the _relevant_ law. Maybe you should have read the last sentence of Law 48 A: "Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer?s or dummy?s hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally." [snip the ??? thereafter] From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 21 22:21:31 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:21:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <001101cc8fca$e799bdc0$b6cd3940$@online.no> Message-ID: <001f01cc902f$05e10f40$11a32dc0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:24:50 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > > [...]> One problem is how you determine the meaning of the withdrawn > > bid. I > >> don't think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a > >> second problem. > >> Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that > >> meaning specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what suits > >> it > > was > >> "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits are > > specfied > >> by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? > > > > [Sven Pran] Law 26A begins: if the withdrawn call related solely to a > > specified suit or suits (and no other suit) > > > > The multi 2D opening bid does in itself by agreement not relate to any > > specific suit. Instead it relates to a number of alternative suits, or > > to no suit at all. Thus the condition for applying Law 26A is not > > satisfied and Law 26B must be applied instead. > > > So -- And I am just asking the quesetion -- if a call shows spades and a > minor, then for L26 purposes you take that call as speficing (or relating > to) just spades. Correct? [Sven Pran] NO! It relates to spades and an undefined other (minor) suit. (Law 26A explicitly states "no other suit".) Please do not have me doubt your ability to read. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 21 22:23:55 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:23:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <004201cc8e35$e6043cb0$b20cb610$@online.no> <4EA00EC7.7050100@aol.com> <001001cc8fc9$d2a3cb50$77eb61f0$@online.no> Message-ID: <002001cc902f$5c4748e0$14d5daa0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:17:05 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > [Sven Pran] There are those who (only) look for problems and failures, > > and there are those who look for solutions. What kind of a person are > > you? > > > That's a really important question. Thank you for asking. > > The laws are, on the technical level, somewhat incompetent. Too > incompetent. We deserve better. > > Solving that problem requires two things. > > 1. Realizing that there is a problem > > 2. Finding a solution to the problem. > > The second step seems fairly simple. Easy, costs little to nothing, obvious that > it would help. You put out planned laws and see if anyone finds a problem. > Or, is someone finds a problem, you fix it, but that is harder. > > That leaves the first step. So, yes, I am here to rub your nose in the fact that > there are problems with the laws. I don't want to make things sound worse > than they are. I am asking people to have an honest opinion. [Sven Pran] In that case my advice for you is to attend a training course for directors. From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 21 22:44:14 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:44:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] declarer's played card (L45C2(a)) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0820C4DFA5554A429F0786B9F02404DA@G3> [Robert Frick] I got the lawbook and read the relevant law to the table. "Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table." Everyone knew what that meant and I hardly even had to make a ruling! Just joking. Of course, the sentence itself is syntactically ambiguous. After straightening that out [probably?], I ruled that it was a player card. Declarer was quite angry. I don't think I have ever had to make that ruling before. Nonetheless, five minutes later, I got the same call at another table. I made the same ruling, only much faster. Declarer, also a director and nice person, graciously accepted the ruling. Then he asked later what would happen if he dropped a card out of his hand when it wasn't his turn to play. Usually, my criterion is if the card looked played. No one thought the card looked played. Maybe the law could be changed to that for the next edition, to make a positive suggestion. Um, why is a famously ambiguous phrase from the 1997 laws still syntactically ambiguous? {Nigel] Robert asks an excellent question. There have been many seemingly endless threads on how to determine whether or not a card is played. Another one is whether it is OK to lead to the next trick while there are still cards exposed to the current trick. IMO, the seemingly most relevant law is the one about a fifth card played to a trick. These controversies are of more than academic interest. A Bermuda bowl balanced on such a legal interpretation. Understandably, the 2007 law-makers may have been reluctant to open that can of worms. We can hope, however, that WBFLC bite the bullet and decide these issues over the course of the next few decades. It would be great if the laws were simplified enough for even ordinary Bridge players to understand. From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 21 23:04:05 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:04:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] declarer's played card (L45C2(a)) In-Reply-To: <0820C4DFA5554A429F0786B9F02404DA@G3> References: <0820C4DFA5554A429F0786B9F02404DA@G3> Message-ID: <004301cc9034$f7f74ba0$e7e5e2e0$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > [Robert Frick] > I got the lawbook and read the relevant law to the table. "Declarer must play > a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the > table." > > Everyone knew what that meant and I hardly even had to make a ruling! > Just joking. Of course, the sentence itself is syntactically ambiguous. > After > straightening that out [probably?], I ruled that it was a player card. > Declarer was quite angry. > > I don't think I have ever had to make that ruling before. Nonetheless, five > minutes later, I got the same call at another table. I made the same ruling, > only much faster. Declarer, also a director and nice person, graciously > accepted the ruling. Then he asked later what would happen if he dropped a > card out of his hand when it wasn't his turn to play. Usually, my criterion is if > the card looked played. No one thought the card looked played. Maybe the > law could be changed to that for the next edition, to make a positive > suggestion. > > Um, why is a famously ambiguous phrase from the 1997 laws still syntactically > ambiguous? > > {Nigel] > Robert asks an excellent question. There have been many seemingly endless > threads on how to determine whether or not a card is played. Another one > is whether it is OK to lead to the next trick while there are still cards > exposed to the current trick. IMO, the seemingly most relevant law is the > one about a fifth card played to a trick. > > These controversies are of more than academic interest. A Bermuda bowl > balanced on such a legal interpretation. Understandably, the 2007 law- > makers may have been reluctant to open that can of worms. We can hope, > however, that WBFLC bite the bullet and decide these issues over the course > of the next few decades. > > It would be great if the laws were simplified enough for even ordinary Bridge > players to understand. [Sven Pran] PLEASE GUYS! If declarer accidentally drops a card face up on the table he can just pick it up without any rectification at all. This is really one of the simplest laws in the book. The only controversy can arise over the question if declarer seems to having played the card and changing his mind in the process, but when Robert stated that there was no doubt at the table that the card had been accidentally dropped then there is no reason at all for questions. When Robert tells us that the first declarer got very angry I say that he had every reason to be angry over such an incompetent ruling. When the second declarer (also a director) graciously accepted the ruling he indeed exposed himself as a very nice person, one who didn't bother to embarrass Robert. But the question he later asked Robert ought to have gotten Robert thinking and realizing his failure in understanding the laws. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Oct 21 23:20:27 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:20:27 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <001f01cc902f$05e10f40$11a32dc0$@online.no> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <001101cc8fca$e799bdc0$b6cd3940$@online.no> <001f01cc902f$05e10f40$11a32dc0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:31 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:24:50 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> > [...]> One problem is how you determine the meaning of the withdrawn >> > bid. I >> >> don't think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a >> >> second problem. >> >> Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that >> >> meaning specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what suits >> >> it >> > was >> >> "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits are >> > specfied >> >> by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? >> > >> > [Sven Pran] Law 26A begins: if the withdrawn call related solely to a >> > specified suit or suits (and no other suit) >> > >> > The multi 2D opening bid does in itself by agreement not relate to any >> > specific suit. Instead it relates to a number of alternative suits, or >> > to no suit at all. Thus the condition for applying Law 26A is not >> > satisfied and Law 26B must be applied instead. >> >> >> So -- And I am just asking the quesetion -- if a call shows spades and a >> minor, then for L26 purposes you take that call as speficing (or >> relating >> to) just spades. Correct? > > [Sven Pran] NO! It relates to spades and an undefined other (minor) suit. > (Law 26A explicitly states "no other suit".) > > Please do not have me doubt your ability to read. Doubt away I guess. Let me try to be very clear about the question. A player makes a bid showing spades and a minor. The bid is withdrawn. What do you rule for L26 purposes? (Trying to read your answer as carefully as I can, I get that declarer can require the lead of an undefined other (minor) suit. Explain?) From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 21 23:39:36 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:39:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <001101cc8fca$e799bdc0$b6cd3940$@online.no> <001f01cc902f$05e10f40$11a32dc0$@online.no> Message-ID: <006201cc9039$ee8ceb10$cba6c130$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:31 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:24:50 -0400, Sven Pran > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Robert Frick > >> > [...]> One problem is how you determine the meaning of the > >> > withdrawn bid. I > >> >> don't think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a > >> >> second problem. > >> >> Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that > >> >> meaning specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what > >> >> suits it > >> > was > >> >> "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits > >> >> are > >> > specfied > >> >> by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? > >> > > >> > [Sven Pran] Law 26A begins: if the withdrawn call related solely to > >> > a specified suit or suits (and no other suit) > >> > > >> > The multi 2D opening bid does in itself by agreement not relate to > >> > any specific suit. Instead it relates to a number of alternative > >> > suits, or to no suit at all. Thus the condition for applying Law > >> > 26A is not satisfied and Law 26B must be applied instead. > >> > >> > >> So -- And I am just asking the quesetion -- if a call shows spades > >> and a minor, then for L26 purposes you take that call as speficing > >> (or relating > >> to) just spades. Correct? > > > > [Sven Pran] NO! It relates to spades and an undefined other (minor) suit. > > (Law 26A explicitly states "no other suit".) > > > > Please do not have me doubt your ability to read. > > Doubt away I guess. Let me try to be very clear about the question. A player > makes a bid showing spades and a minor. The bid is withdrawn. What do you > rule for L26 purposes? > > (Trying to read your answer as carefully as I can, I get that declarer can > require the lead of an undefined other (minor) suit. Explain?) [Sven Pran] There is no doubt that "declarer may prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead", i.e. declarer may name any single suit and prohibit a lead in that suit from offender's partner. This is Law 26B. Declarer may definitely not name one of the minor suits and require a lead in that suit. However, I have some sympathy for a ruling that declarer may require a lead in spades although I consider such ruling incorrect in this situation. From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 02:18:34 2011 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:18:34 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Fielding misbids Message-ID: Are there any differences in rulings between fielding psyches and fielding misbids? One difference is that in the ACBL, you cannot psyche a strong, artificial 2C opening, but you are allowed to misbid it. For my question, let's ignore disciplinary rulings to focus primarily on rectification. So I guess my question is whether the rulings for rectifications for fielding psyches should be (or is) any different from rectifications for fielding misbids. Maybe I should also stipulate that the director has convinced himself that the misbid case was indeed a misbid, not MI. I do have an opinion on it, but it appears that David Stephenson disagrees. I wonder who is right. Jerry Fusselman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111022/5be5b729/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 22 03:01:30 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:01:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <006201cc9039$ee8ceb10$cba6c130$@online.no> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <001101cc8fca$e799bdc0$b6cd3940$@online.no> <001f01cc902f$05e10f40$11a32dc0$@online.no> <006201cc9039$ee8ceb10$cba6c130$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:39:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:31 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:24:50 -0400, Sven Pran >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> > [...]> One problem is how you determine the meaning of the >> >> > withdrawn bid. I >> >> >> don't think there is a consistent answer to that. But there is a >> >> >> second problem. >> >> >> Suppose everyone agrees on the meaning. Now, what suits does that >> >> >> meaning specify? Or, I think someone else tried to answer what >> >> >> suits it >> >> > was >> >> >> "related" to, but I think you preferred "specify". So what suits >> >> >> are >> >> > specfied >> >> >> by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? >> >> > >> >> > [Sven Pran] Law 26A begins: if the withdrawn call related solely to >> >> > a specified suit or suits (and no other suit) >> >> > >> >> > The multi 2D opening bid does in itself by agreement not relate to >> >> > any specific suit. Instead it relates to a number of alternative >> >> > suits, or to no suit at all. Thus the condition for applying Law >> >> > 26A is not satisfied and Law 26B must be applied instead. >> >> >> >> >> >> So -- And I am just asking the quesetion -- if a call shows spades >> >> and a minor, then for L26 purposes you take that call as speficing >> >> (or relating >> >> to) just spades. Correct? >> > >> > [Sven Pran] NO! It relates to spades and an undefined other (minor) > suit. >> > (Law 26A explicitly states "no other suit".) >> > >> > Please do not have me doubt your ability to read. >> >> Doubt away I guess. Let me try to be very clear about the question. A > player >> makes a bid showing spades and a minor. The bid is withdrawn. What do >> you >> rule for L26 purposes? >> >> (Trying to read your answer as carefully as I can, I get that declarer >> can >> require the lead of an undefined other (minor) suit. Explain?) > > [Sven Pran] There is no doubt that "declarer may prohibit offender's > partner > from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead", i.e. declarer may > name > any single suit and prohibit a lead in that suit from offender's partner. > This is Law 26B. > > Declarer may definitely not name one of the minor suits and require a > lead > in that suit. However, I have some sympathy for a ruling that declarer > may > require a lead in spades although I consider such ruling incorrect in > this > situation. To make sense of how you are getting your ruling out of the laws -- you are thinking that the bid (showing spades and a minor) relates to a minor suit but does not specify that minor suit. Correct? I am thinking that makes "relates" a technical term. Richard, can you clarify why it was decided not to put this word in the definitions? While you are answering question, "specifies" and "relates" you mean length. That's why you were not applying L26A to bids which show a heart stopper or a Splinter which shows shortness in a specified suit. Correct? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 22 03:04:51 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:04:51 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Re: L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <853BE9E2-87F6-4C9A-9F7E-58A5D43218DA@starpower.net> References: <4EA17DEE.8020209@aol.com> <4EA17EDA.4010509@aol.com> <853BE9E2-87F6-4C9A-9F7E-58A5D43218DA@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:49:06 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Von: Jeff Easterson >> >> Am 21.10.2011 03:22, schrieb Robert Frick: > >> >> I am pretty sure Sven wants to crawl inside the mind of the >> insufficient > bidder, find out why the bid was insufficient, and >> go from there. But none > of that is actually in Sven's >> formulation. In fact, it is all inside my > head, I guess I have no >> idea of knowing what Sven was thinking, if > anything. (And that >> will be pretty close to "intended bid", which Sven did > not like, >> and maybe better.) >> >> Sven was thinking, "if the bid had been legal" what would have been >> the meaning? Is there anyone other than you who has a problem with >> this? > > Bob's problem is that, absent any context, "if the bid had been > legal" can resolved in an arbitrarily large number of different ways, > which would make the phrase useless for any practical application. > But this discussion is not context-free, and an obvious resolution > suggests itself when context is taken into accoiunt. > > We can presume that a player making an (illegal) bid (mis-) perceived > it to be legal at the time he made it (a player who makes an illegal > bid deliberately commits a far more grievous offense than simply > bidding insufficiently or out of turn). That means that if the > conditions of the deal and the preceding auction had been what the > bidder thought they were, then the bid *would have* been legal. That > is the only such set of circumstances that distinguishes itself from > the myriad other possibilities that "would have made the bid legal", > and the only one that provides a specific enough basis for us to make > the determinations as to meaning that the laws require us to. Which > is why, as Jeff asserts, we don't generally have a problem with this > interpretation. > > And there is, of course, no need to "crawl inside the minde of the... > bidder" to decide what he thought the conditiions of the deal and the > preceding auction were when he made his (incorrectly thought to be > legal) bid, as he is right there in front of us and we can simply ask > him. Perhaps I'm naive, but I've been doing that for over 45 years > since I first started directing, and don't believe I've ever gotten > anything but a straight-out truthful answer. Maybe I used the wrong words. I was saying that to make your ruling, you have to find out what the bidder *thought* the auction was. To me, it is very important to add this to "if the auction was legal". In fact, as you point out, you don't even need "if the auction was legal" once you find out what the bidder thought the auction was. I think you still need to do some more work. In response to 4NT, the player bids 4H. Yes, they thought the 4H bid was legal. But there was no misunderstanding of the auction. And they don't really think 5H is a legal bid, they just made a mistake. You wrote: "That means that if the conditions of the deal and the preceding auction had been what the bidder thought they were, then the bid *would have* been legal." That doesn't apply here. I also do not know how you handle inadvertant bids. I am not saying you can't; actually I am not even sure how you want to handle them. BTW, my current formulation is that the insufficient bid occurred because of some mistake. We discover the "meaning" of the bid had that mistake not occurred. It's just a whole lot quicker to ask the player what he meant by his bid. Skips the step you are saying is so important without really any loss. Of course, the answer to your question (why did you think your bid was legal) usually appears. But it still isn't that relevant, you still go on to discover what the player intended. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Oct 22 04:35:33 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:35:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <8649EFE0-5C35-4919-83DB-1980A838A6BD@starpower.net> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <8649EFE0-5C35-4919-83DB-1980A838A6BD@starpower.net> Message-ID: "Eric Landau" writes: > On Oct 20, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>So what suits are >> specfied by a Precision 2D opening for L26 purposes? > > A good question. I want to say spades, hearts and clubs. "Shows > four" and "shows four or five" obviously qualify as "specifying". And what if the bid systemically can show three cards in one of the majors? Does "shows three or four" specify a suit when there are other suits shown? The distinction that there are other suits shown is important. Many players play that a 1C opening promises only two clubs, and we agree that it specifies clubs (as it shows that clubs are the longest openable suit). Conversely, a 1NT opening promises at least two clubs but does not specify them. > But what about "shows zero or one" -- is "specifying shortness" in a > suit the same as "specifying" the suit itself? Consider the auction > 1S-P-4C, where 4C is a splinter bid promising spade support and short > clubs: does it specify only spades, or spades and clubs? I would say that it does specify clubs. Thus, if North opens 1S, South bids 4C out of turn, RHO rejects the bid and bids something, and then South bids 4S, a lead penalty does apply to clubs. From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 22 08:14:36 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:14:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude Message-ID: <683580666.84425.1319264076217.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > The laws are, on the technical level, somewhat incompetent. Too > incompetent. We deserve better. > > Solving that problem requires two things. > > 1. Realizing that there is a problem > > 2. Finding a solution to the problem. > > The second step seems fairly simple. Easy, costs little to nothing, > obvious that it would help. You put out planned laws and see if anyone > finds a problem. Or, is someone finds a problem, you fix it, but that is > harder. That is oversimplified, reality is more complex. You just put up an example where you gave two horribly wrong rulings because you looked up the wrong law. Writing rules and laws is very difficult. Human language is not exact like a mathematical formula. The wording which seems clearer to you might easily confuse somebody else. If you throw more words at the problem, you just add more words that can and will be misinterpreted. If you try to be concise to avoid that, then people will have trouble making the right ruling in complex situations where they have to combine the effects of several laws. Furthermore, if you frequently change the rules, people will simply not be aware of what the current rules are. So, no, improving TFLB, which desirable, is not easy at all. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 22 13:45:59 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:45:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <683580666.84425.1319264076217.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <683580666.84425.1319264076217.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:14:36 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: > >> The laws are, on the technical level, somewhat incompetent. Too >> incompetent. We deserve better. >> >> Solving that problem requires two things. >> >> 1. Realizing that there is a problem >> >> 2. Finding a solution to the problem. >> >> The second step seems fairly simple. Easy, costs little to nothing, >> obvious that it would help. You put out planned laws and see if anyone >> finds a problem. Or, is someone finds a problem, you fix it, but that is >> harder. > > That is oversimplified, reality is more complex. > You just put up an example where you gave two horribly wrong rulings > because you looked up the wrong law. > > Writing rules and laws is very difficult. Human language is > not exact like a mathematical formula. The wording which seems > clearer to you might easily confuse somebody else. If you throw more > words at the problem, you just add more words that can and will be > misinterpreted. If you try to be concise to avoid that, then > people will have trouble making the right ruling in complex > situations where they have to combine the effects of several > laws. > > Furthermore, if you frequently change the rules, people will simply not > be aware of what the current rules are. > > So, no, improving TFLB, which desirable, is not easy at all. > This is essentially a trap. The director wants to know if dropping a card causes the compulsory play of the card. Director looks up compulsory play of a card. Director finds an answer -- touching the table (on the table in this case) is compulsory play of the card. The director then makes a ruling. That's what we do -- find an answer in the book and make a ruling. The declarer does not think to read elsewhere. Had the director thought about that, he would not have thought to look up the section on penalty cards, because he knew it wasn't a penalty card. And you are saying you could not write this rule a little better? From svenpran at online.no Sat Oct 22 14:50:27 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:50:27 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: <683580666.84425.1319264076217.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <000401cc90b9$2d50eed0$87f2cc70$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > This is essentially a trap. The director wants to know if dropping a card causes > the compulsory play of the card. Director looks up compulsory play of a card. > Director finds an answer -- touching the table (on the table in this case) is > compulsory play of the card. The director then makes a ruling. That's what we > do -- find an answer in the book and make a ruling. [Sven Pran] If the director looks up "compulsory play of a card" he will find Law 45B2: 2. Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. A dropped card is neither held nor maintained so he should immediately know that this is not the correct law and he should look elsewhere. As the card has been exposed (in an irregular way) he should look up "exposed card", and he will find Law 48A: A. Declarer Exposes a Card Declarer is not subject to restriction for exposing a card (but see Law 45C2), and no card of declarer's or dummy's hand ever becomes a penalty card. Declarer is not required to play any card dropped accidentally. > The declarer does not think to read elsewhere. Had the director thought > about that, he would not have thought to look up the section on penalty > cards, because he knew it wasn't a penalty card. > > And you are saying you could not write this rule a little better? [Sven Pran] Do you still say anybody should? I think this "director" should take some training course so that he can qualify as a director. Nobody I know says that directing is easy. That is why we have training courses and encourage bridge players who might find themselves in the position of directing to attend such courses and take a qualification test. From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 22 15:20:49 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:20:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude Message-ID: <1118158156.54075.1319289649705.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:14:36 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: > > > >> The laws are, on the technical level, somewhat incompetent. Too > >> incompetent. We deserve better. > >> > >> Solving that problem requires two things. > >> > >> 1. Realizing that there is a problem > >> > >> 2. Finding a solution to the problem. > >> > >> The second step seems fairly simple. Easy, costs little to nothing, > >> obvious that it would help. You put out planned laws and see if anyone > >> finds a problem. Or, is someone finds a problem, you fix it, but that is > >> harder. > > > > That is oversimplified, reality is more complex. > > You just put up an example where you gave two horribly wrong rulings > > because you looked up the wrong law. > > > > > Writing rules and laws is very difficult. Human language is > > not exact like a mathematical formula. The wording which seems > > clearer to you might easily confuse somebody else. If you throw more > > words at the problem, you just add more words that can and will be > > misinterpreted. If you try to be concise to avoid that, then > > people will have trouble making the right ruling in complex > > situations where they have to combine the effects of several > > laws. > > > > Furthermore, if you frequently change the rules, people will simply not > > be aware of what the current rules are. > > > > So, no, improving TFLB, which desirable, is not easy at all. > > > This is essentially a trap. The director wants to know if dropping a card > causes the compulsory play of the card. Director looks up compulsory play > of a card. Director finds an answer -- touching the table (on the table in > this case) is compulsory play of the card. The director then makes a > ruling. That's what we do -- find an answer in the book and make a ruling. This usage of TFLB (searching for "compulsory") is a user error. Declarer accidentally dropped a card. The user has to search for the law which addresses that, not for the word "compulsory". Or worse, for the word "disqualify". A card "held face up" is not the same as an unintentionally dropped card (which is not "held"), or a claim. Preferably, the director knows TFLB, and knows which law to apply, so that he does not have to search, other than to have the law available to read the relevant section of the law to the players when he makes a ruling. Sometimes in a small club volunters who lack the necessary knowledge have to be a director. But in a big club like yours, with a paid semi professional director, the director should have successfully completed multiple courses, rather than rely on merely reading TFLB. Even when you accidentally find L45 when searching for the answer to that scenario, it is evident that L45 defines intentionally played cards, and it does not address accidentally dropped cards. Yes, in theory there could be many footnotes to L45, like this * For cards accidentally exposed by declarer, see L48 * For cards accidentally exposed by a defender, see L49 * For claims, see L48 * For cards held face up, but failing to follow suit, also see L61 * For a player playing two cards to a trick, see L50B [...] That would lead to a law book which is less readable that what we have now. Thomas From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 22 15:38:20 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:38:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <000401cc90b9$2d50eed0$87f2cc70$@online.no> References: <683580666.84425.1319264076217.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> <000401cc90b9$2d50eed0$87f2cc70$@online.no> Message-ID: <9E1333D33AA348638E41C68258649C65@G3> [[Thomas Dehn] Writing rules and laws is very difficult. Human language is not exact like a mathematical formula. The wording which seems clearer to you might easily confuse somebody else. If you throw more words at the problem, you just add more words that can and will be misinterpreted. If you try to be concise to avoid that, then people will have trouble making the right ruling in complex situations where they have to combine the effects of several laws. {Nigel] Some controversies (like when is a card played? what does this law means by "held"?) have been discussed ad nauseam in BLML for over a decade. Hence I feel that Robert is right that law-makers have had impetus and time to simplify it or clarify them. [[Thomas Dehn] Furthermore, if you frequently change the rules, people will simply not be aware of what the current rules are. So, no, improving TFLB, which desirable, is not easy at all {Nige1] Arguably, I suppose, the WBFLC should restrict radical changes to the rules to its ten-year review. In the long term, The law book should be reorganised as a decision tree or flow diagram or expert system, so that directors like Robert are not expected to consult several different seemingly unrelated laws to rule on basic cases. But the WBFLC would ruffle the feathers of only a few secretary birds if it corrected anomalies and clarified ambiguities as they arise. [Sven Pran] Do you still say anybody should? I think this "director" should take some training course so that he can qualify as a director. Nobody I know says that directing is easy. That is why we have training courses and encourage bridge players who might find themselves in the position of directing to attend such courses and take a qualification test. [Nige1] Law-makers and directors seem unconcerned about the plight of ordinary players, who are expected to comply with laws that are over-complex and incomprehensible even to trained directors. We aren't consulted and our interests rarely get consideration in any laws forum. From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 22 16:35:39 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:35:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude Message-ID: <1378866106.124180.1319294139561.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [[Thomas Dehn] > Writing rules and laws is very difficult. Human language is not exact like a > > mathematical formula. The wording which seems clearer to you might easily > confuse somebody else. If you throw more words at the problem, you just add > > more words that can and will be misinterpreted. If you try to be concise to > > avoid that, then people will have trouble making the right ruling in complex > > situations where they have to combine the effects of several laws. > {Nigel] > Some controversies (like when is a card played? what does this law means by > > "held"?) have been discussed ad nauseam in BLML for over a decade. Hence I > feel that Robert is right that law-makers have had impetus and time to > simplify it or clarify them. > > > [[Thomas Dehn] > Furthermore, if you frequently change the rules, people will simply not be > aware of what the current rules are. So, no, improving TFLB, which > desirable, is not easy at all > {Nige1] > Arguably, I suppose, the WBFLC should restrict radical changes to the rules > > to its ten-year review. > In the long term, The law book should be reorganised as a decision tree or > flow diagram or expert system, so that directors like Robert are not > expected to consult several different seemingly unrelated laws to rule on > basic cases. > But the WBFLC would ruffle the feathers of only a few secretary birds if it > corrected anomalies and clarified ambiguities as they arise. I don't think a decision tree or flow chart could possibly work. I am using UI (as in "extraneous information from partner") as an example. Was there UI? Was the UI a hesitation? If yes, how long was the hesitation? [Flow chart here on how to collect more information on the nature of the UI] Is the director just called to reserve rights/advise, or is a ruling to be made? Has play of the hand already completed? If a ruling is to be made, and play has already completed, what was suggested by the UI? Did the player choose an alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI? Did the player have the same information as AI? Did the player appear to deliberately use UI to make an unusual action? Was there damage? If yes, was the damage due to a serious error? Was there MI? If yes, was the damage due to the MI? What result were likely/at all probable had the irregularity not occurred? Some subsets of these questions could be arranged into some sort of task flow. However, it still would not provide for an efficient approach. You'd end up with a bulky flow chart just for handling "extraneous information from partner". Also, you need to know what a logical alternative is. You need to know what "demonstrably suggested" means. You need to know what "likely" and "at all probable" mean. You need to know what "damage" means. You need to know what a "serious error" is. You need to know what UI is. You need to know what MI is. So even in case you had a perfect flow chart, and you encountered a basic case with only one offending side, you'd still need to reference lots of information from elsewhere. Thomas From mal.clark at iinet.net.au Sat Oct 22 16:46:52 2011 From: mal.clark at iinet.net.au (Mal Clark) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:46:52 +0800 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <1378866106.124180.1319294139561.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <1378866106.124180.1319294139561.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <7E8553C80EEB49E98ADF92047E1712D1@OWNER> I shagged her -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dehn Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2011 10:36 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] L26 Interlude Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [[Thomas Dehn] > Writing rules and laws is very difficult. Human language is not exact like a > > mathematical formula. The wording which seems clearer to you might easily > confuse somebody else. If you throw more words at the problem, you just add > > more words that can and will be misinterpreted. If you try to be concise to > > avoid that, then people will have trouble making the right ruling in complex > > situations where they have to combine the effects of several laws. > {Nigel] > Some controversies (like when is a card played? what does this law means by > > "held"?) have been discussed ad nauseam in BLML for over a decade. Hence I > feel that Robert is right that law-makers have had impetus and time to > simplify it or clarify them. > > > [[Thomas Dehn] > Furthermore, if you frequently change the rules, people will simply not be > aware of what the current rules are. So, no, improving TFLB, which > desirable, is not easy at all > {Nige1] > Arguably, I suppose, the WBFLC should restrict radical changes to the rules > > to its ten-year review. > In the long term, The law book should be reorganised as a decision tree or > flow diagram or expert system, so that directors like Robert are not > expected to consult several different seemingly unrelated laws to rule on > basic cases. > But the WBFLC would ruffle the feathers of only a few secretary birds if it > corrected anomalies and clarified ambiguities as they arise. I don't think a decision tree or flow chart could possibly work. I am using UI (as in "extraneous information from partner") as an example. Was there UI? Was the UI a hesitation? If yes, how long was the hesitation? [Flow chart here on how to collect more information on the nature of the UI] Is the director just called to reserve rights/advise, or is a ruling to be made? Has play of the hand already completed? If a ruling is to be made, and play has already completed, what was suggested by the UI? Did the player choose an alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI? Did the player have the same information as AI? Did the player appear to deliberately use UI to make an unusual action? Was there damage? If yes, was the damage due to a serious error? Was there MI? If yes, was the damage due to the MI? What result were likely/at all probable had the irregularity not occurred? Some subsets of these questions could be arranged into some sort of task flow. However, it still would not provide for an efficient approach. You'd end up with a bulky flow chart just for handling "extraneous information from partner". Also, you need to know what a logical alternative is. You need to know what "demonstrably suggested" means. You need to know what "likely" and "at all probable" mean. You need to know what "damage" means. You need to know what a "serious error" is. You need to know what UI is. You need to know what MI is. So even in case you had a perfect flow chart, and you encountered a basic case with only one offending side, you'd still need to reference lots of information from elsewhere. Thomas _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 22 17:08:31 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 16:08:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <1378866106.124180.1319294139561.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> References: <1378866106.124180.1319294139561.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <18E568AEB3AF4C4E9A4DBBD0FD88CFE6@G3> [Thomas Dehn] I don't think a decision tree or flow chart could possibly work. I am using UI (as in "extraneous information from partner") as an example. Was there UI? Was the UI a hesitation? If yes, how long was the hesitation? [Flow chart here on how to collect more information on the nature of the UI] Is the director just called to reserve rights/advise, or is a ruling to be made? Has play of the hand already completed? If a ruling is to be made, and play has already completed, what was suggested by the UI? Did the player choose an alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI? Did the player have the same information as AI? Did the player appear to deliberately use UI to make an unusual action? Was there damage? If yes, was the damage due to a serious error? Was there MI? If yes, was the damage due to the MI? What result were likely/at all probable had the irregularity not occurred? Some subsets of these questions could be arranged into some sort of task flow. However, it still would not provide for an efficient approach. You'd end up with a bulky flow chart just for handling "extraneous information from partner". Also, you need to know what a logical alternative is. You need to know what "demonstrably suggested" means. You need to know what "likely" and "at all probable" mean. You need to know what "damage" means. You need to know what a "serious error" is. You need to know what UI is. You need to know what MI is. So even in case you had a perfect flow chart, and you encountered a basic case with only one offending side, you'd still need to reference lots of information from elsewhere. [Nigei] I agree that the task is non-trivial but Laval Du Breuil has written such a book. See http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf An expert system accessible by mobile phone or tablet would be a another obvious application. An attempt (even a failed attempt) to structure the laws in a logical and sensible manner would be beneficial because - it would help to high-light ambiguities and anomalies. - it would suggest obvious simplifications and improvements. - it would greatly help directors by formalising a step-by-step protocol that that they should follow. From blml at arcor.de Sat Oct 22 18:18:34 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:18:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude Message-ID: <1751603148.55120.1319300314791.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Thomas Dehn] > I don't think a decision tree or flow chart could possibly work. > > I am using UI (as in "extraneous information from partner") as an example. > > Was there UI? > Was the UI a hesitation? If yes, how long was the hesitation? > [Flow chart here on how to collect more information on the nature of the > UI] > > Is the director just called to reserve rights/advise, or is a ruling to be > made? > Has play of the hand already completed? > If a ruling is to be made, and play has already completed, what was > suggested by the UI? > Did the player choose an alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI? > Did the player have the same information as AI? > Did the player appear to deliberately use UI to make an unusual action? > Was there damage? > If yes, was the damage due to a serious error? > Was there MI? > If yes, was the damage due to the MI? > What result were likely/at all probable had the irregularity not occurred? > > Some subsets of these questions could be arranged into some > sort of task flow. However, it still would not provide for an efficient > approach. > You'd end up with a bulky flow chart just for handling > "extraneous information from partner". > > > Also, you need to know what a logical alternative is. > You need to know what "demonstrably suggested" means. > You need to know what "likely" and "at all probable" mean. > You need to know what "damage" means. > You need to know what a "serious error" is. > You need to know what UI is. > You need to know what MI is. > > So even in case you had a perfect flow chart, and you encountered > a basic case with only one offending side, you'd still need > to reference lots of information from elsewhere. > > [Nigei] > I agree that the task is non-trivial but Laval Du Breuil has written such a > > book. See > http://www.abf.com.au/directors/PDFs/Laws-charts-Web.pdf This is an excellent effort, but I think those flow charts have their own share of confusion and mixups. I looked at the revokes flow chart on page 40 in detail, mainly because the pdf has a fraction of the flow chart for revokes on the first page. L64B3 is missing from the chart. Instead, it is in a separate box that could be overlooked or misread in various ways. The footnote to L64A2 apparently is missing from the chart. There is an actual error, "Did a member of offending side call on the next deal ?" should have been "Did a member of non-offending side call on the next deal ?" (L64B4) The wording "He may not choose a play possibly suggested by the revoke" on the flow chart has a slightly different meaning than "he may not choose the play that could possibly have been suggested by seeing the revoke card." [I stopped here because I deemed that sufficient to form an opinion] To summarize: the flow chart does help to some extent, some aspctes *are* clearer in the flow chart, but it introduces a whole new source of errors and mixups. My impression is that if you *replaced* TFLB with such flow charts, overall you would end up with something hard to maintain, and a similar level of potential misunderstandings as the current TFLB. In case you *added* those flow charts to TFLB in addition to the current text, it would help avoid some misunderstandings, but it would double the amount of content that could contain errors, and it would be very hard to maintain, and to keep the two "versions" in synch. Thomas From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Oct 23 18:59:23 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:59:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA447EB.2020404@nhcc.net> On 10/19/2011 2:17 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > An unsufficient bid or a bid out of rotation don't have a systemic > meaning. You don't make agreements concerning illegal bids. Correct for an IB. True in theory, I suppose, for a BOOT, but very often the actual meaning is obvious to everyone. > Thus, the only meaning connected to these bids is the intended meaning > of the bidder. That's what many authorities have adopted, but it isn't the only possibility. A different one is the perception of what the bid might mean to other players, particularly to partner. That's probably harder to determine, and I can understand why authorities would prefer the simpler approach. Even simpler would be a rule that didn't depend on meaning at all, but the authorities have chosen otherwise. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 23 19:58:42 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:58:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] obscure problem Message-ID: I suspect Sven is right and that a bid showing spades and a minor does not meet the first criterion for a L26A treatment hence gets L26B. (That because there is a related suit that is not specified). This leads to the following curiosity. If my bid shows Spades and clubs, it meets the first criterion for L26A and gets an L26A adjustment. If I later specify both spades and clubs, there is no lead restrictions according to the law. However, if my bid shows spades and a minor, and then I bid Spades and clubs, specifying both suits, my partner still has lead restrictions. Following the law. The section relieving him of lead restrictions is in L26A, and we never get to it because, as already noted, the first criterion isn't met. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 23 20:05:46 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:05:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <4EA447EB.2020404@nhcc.net> References: <4EA447EB.2020404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:59:23 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/19/2011 2:17 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> An unsufficient bid or a bid out of rotation don't have a systemic >> meaning. You don't make agreements concerning illegal bids. > > Correct for an IB. True in theory, I suppose, for a BOOT, but very > often the actual meaning is obvious to everyone. > >> Thus, the only meaning connected to these bids is the intended meaning >> of the bidder. > > That's what many authorities have adopted, but it isn't the only > possibility. A different one is the perception of what the bid might > mean to other players, particularly to partner. That's probably harder > to determine, and I can understand why authorities would prefer the > simpler approach. Even simpler would be a rule that didn't depend on > meaning at all, but the authorities have chosen otherwise. Actually, there is little need for L26 if the partner of the player making the withdrawn bid has no idea what the withdrawn bid means. Instead, that leads to problems, in particular making the meaning of the illegal bid known to partner. (And the suit specified by that bid will be AI.) So you might be mystified why your partner doubled your bid, but all becomes clear when declarer is given the option of prohibiting or insisting on a heart lead. On the other hand, if the partner knows what the withdrawn bid shows, then you probably want those lead restrictions. So a double might seem meaningless to you as director and you apply L26B, no specified suit. But you might regret that ruling if you found out that both players thought that illegal double showed hearts. So the key thing seems to be, not the meaning of the bid, but whether or not any communication occurred. From svenpran at online.no Sun Oct 23 21:06:15 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:06:15 +0200 Subject: [BLML] obscure problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001101cc91b6$d6dcc610$84965230$@online.no> > Robert Frick > I suspect Sven is right and that a bid showing spades and a minor does not > meet the first criterion for a L26A treatment hence gets L26B. (That because > there is a related suit that is not specified). > > This leads to the following curiosity. > > If my bid shows Spades and clubs, it meets the first criterion for L26A and > gets an L26A adjustment. If I later specify both spades and clubs, there is no > lead restrictions according to the law. > > However, if my bid shows spades and a minor, and then I bid Spades and > clubs, specifying both suits, my partner still has lead restrictions. > Following the law. The section relieving him of lead restrictions is in L26A, and > we never get to it because, as already noted, the first criterion isn't met. [Sven Pran] I agree with the views, but I am not really concerned. Law 26B generally gives NOS more latitude than L26A, an effect that I find reasonable because a call that results in L26B is less precise than a call that results in L26A and thus leaves NOS with more uncertainty about opponents' auction. I couldn't care less about the situation when after a withdrawn call that shows spades and a minor being clarified later in the auction that the minor is clubs. This clarification is beneficial to offender's partner as well, but the damage from the withdrawn call can still be there. And remember that it can very well be a disadvantage to declarer when L26B applies that he may not name a particular suit and request lead in that suit. That is why I have some sympathy for a combination of L26A (on suits shown with the withdrawn call) and L26B when the call included undefined suit(s). But L26 does not allow such combined effects the way I un derstand it. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 23 23:20:12 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:20:12 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Fielding misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anagrammatic sock puppet Hilda R. Lirsch -> "Sloppy language encourages sloppy thinking." Jerry Fusselman -> Are there any differences in rulings between fielding psyches and fielding misbids? One difference is that in the ACBL, you cannot psyche a strong, artificial 2C opening, but you are allowed to misbid it. ?For my question, let's ignore disciplinary rulings to focus primarily on rectification.?So I guess my question is whether the rulings for rectifications for fielding psyches should be (or is) any different from rectifications for fielding misbids. Maybe I should also stipulate that the director has convinced himself that the misbid case was indeed a misbid, not MI. I do have an opinion on it, but it appears that David Stevenson disagrees. I wonder who is right. Richard Hills -> For what it is worth, in my youth I was a sloppy thinker about "fielding". But then David Stevenson unfairly used rigorous logic to convince me to join David in accurately defining "fielding". So my Stevensonian logical replies to the issues raised by Jerry are: (a) There should be no differences in rulings between "fielding" psyches and "fielding" misbids. In both cases the "fielding" is strong evidence of a pseudo-psyche / pseudo-misbid, that is strong evidence of a Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding. (b) Normally a true psyche is fully legal under Law 40A3 (note that Law 40A3 contains a cross-reference to the pseudo-psyche Law 40C1). However, an exception to Law 40A3 is Law 40B2(d), which permits the Regulating Authority to restrict true psyches of artificial calls. (c) A player who employs an illegal undisclosed partnership understanding has committed an infraction. If the partner then refuses to "field", that does _not_ retrospectively cancel the infraction. See below. WBF Code of Practice, Disclosure of psychic tendencies -> A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111023/9d7789f8/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 24 00:24:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:24:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anagrammatic sock puppet Hilda R. Lirsch -> "Sloppy reading encourages sloppy thinking." Robert Frick -> So -- And I am just asking the question -- if a call shows spades and a minor, then for L26 purposes you take that call as specifying (or relating to) just spades. Correct? Sven Pran -> NO! It relates to spades and an undefined other (minor) suit. (Law 26A explicitly states "no other suit".) Please do not have me doubt your ability to read. Robert Frick -> Doubt away I guess. Let me try to be very clear about the question. A player makes a bid showing spades and a minor. The bid is withdrawn. What do you rule for L26 purposes? (Trying to read your answer as carefully as I can, I get that declarer can require the lead of an undefined other (minor) suit. Explain?) Richard Hills -> I am certain that Robert Frick is a sloppy reader. Sven Pran states Law 26A does not apply, therefore a careful reader would deduce that Sven is arguing that the alternate Law 26B applies. If Robert read Law 26B, he would not need an explanation of his own sloppy attempted paradox. Law 26B - Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions -> For other withdrawn calls, declarer may prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as offender's partner retains the lead. 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/20111023/f00d0e34/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 24 04:00:36 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:00:36 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EA175AB.6050600@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946) -> [snip] the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner -> [snip] If a Red Psyche was a call that was too well understood by partner, it would make it a CPU and by the same token the bid would no more be a psyche. Richard Hills -> So far Alain is impeccably correct, with total lack of slovenliness in Alain's language, thus total lack of foolishness in Alain's thoughts. Alain Gottcheiner -> But a Red Psyche is a call that was possibly too well understood (the word suspicion is used in the definition; other possible explanations do exist in many cases), whence there is no certainty that it wasn't a psyche after all. Now there is another question: is it good that a suspicion (albeit possibly strong) makes you liable to a penalty? Richard Hills -> But now under the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, it is slovenly language -- leading to foolish thoughts -- to employ the phrase "suspicion, albeit possibly strong". Law 85B prohibits a Director from ruling that a particularly suspicious disputed fact is 50% true. The Director must instead apply the Schrodinger's Cat principle of ruling that the disputed fact is either 100% alive or 100% dead. Alain Gottcheiner -> Since some other laws explicitly speak in that way ("could have known"), Richard Hills -> The phrase "could have been aware" in Law 23 means that a Director has an easier time determining disputed facts, since the Director need not (and should not) make any factual determination about whether or not the offending player was intentionally ch**t*ng. Alain Gottcheiner -> it is lawful, but is it fair? Nigel Guthrie -> My impression is that the excellent EBU protocol is the other way around. [snip] I would be interested in whether either Richard (Hills or Willey) can devise a fairer procedure (to both sides), without employing truth-serum or water-boarding. Richard Hills -> As for "fair", that is a classic example of slovenly language. The slovenly language of "fair" led to the foolish thought of the illegal De Wael School, which was predicated on a player preventing her partner from being "unfairly" damaged. But that foolish thought is refuted by reading Law 12B1, which proves that you cannot damage your partner, only damage your opponents. And the excellent EBU Green / Amber / Red "Psyche" protocol may be fair, but it is based on a slovenly definition of "psyche", hence is just as illegally foolish as the De Wael School. This excellent but foolish EBU protocol defines an undisclosed partnership understanding as an illegal Red "Psyche" if fielded, but defines an undisclosed partnership understanding as a legal Amber "Psyche" if not fielded. What's the problem? The problem is that the word "psyche" is an exhausted idiom. The 2007 Drafting Committee carefully and intelligently avoided the slovenly language of this exhausted idiom by removing "psyche" from both Law 40A3 and also Law 40C1. George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946) -> [snip] The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111024/33eba8ab/attachment.html From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Oct 24 04:07:54 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:07:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] declarer's played card (L45C2(a)) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA4C87A.80807@nhcc.net> On 10/21/2011 3:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Um, why is a famously ambiguous phrase from the 1997 laws still > syntactically ambiguous? We've been told on this list that the WBFLC started the 2007 revision process with an ambitious plan for a major overhaul and clarification of the Laws. This was quashed by the ACBL. I don't know whether the phrase in question would have been modified or not, but we know which organization opposed substantial modifications. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 08:18:25 2011 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:18:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L26 Interlude In-Reply-To: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> Message-ID: 2011/10/20 Eric Landau : > On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:17:15 -0400, Harald Skj?ran >> wrote: >> >>> An unsufficient bid or a bid out of rotation don't have a systemic >>> meaning. You don't make agreements concerning illegal bids. >>> Thus, the only meaning connected to these bids is the intended >>> meaning >>> of the bidder. >> > > I don't understand the example. ?Why wouldn't an out-of-turn opening > bid mean the same thing as an in-turn opening bid? ?Except in the > totally improbable case where a 2D opening by the dealer would mean > something different from a 2D opening in second seat after RHO's > pass, why would anything need to be asked or answered here? Sorry, I wasn't clear enough with my example. I wasn't talking about out-of-turn openings, which with few exceptions have an obvious meaning. Out-of-turn bids later in the auction, would also most of the time have an obvious systemic meaning. So I should have restricted my reply to unsufficient bids > > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Berre Skj?ran From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 24 09:51:35 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:51:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Nigel] My impression is that the excellent EBU protocol is the other way around. [snip] I would be interested in whether either Richard (Hills or Willey) can devise a fairer procedure (to both sides), without employing truth-serum or water-boarding. [Richard Hills] As for "fair", that is a classic example of slovenly language [snip] Law 85B prohibits a Director from ruling that a particularly suspicious disputed fact is 50% true. The Director must instead apply the Schrodinger's Cat principle of ruling that the disputed fact is either 100% alive or 100% dead [Nige2] Richard's point here is hard to understand. The director must decide one way or the other based on his assessment of the evidence. He is allowed to treat past history as evidence. Hardly ever can he be certain that his judgement is right. [Richard Hills] [more cheek snipped ... including with George Orwell quote imputing insincerity] [Nige2] Obviously the law-book needs better definitions but Richard again ducks the main question. How should the rules police psychs, deviations, misbids, CPUs, and the like? :( From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 24 10:23:41 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:23:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000a01cc9226$3d466d60$b7d34820$@online.no> > Nigel Guthrie > [...] > Obviously the law-book needs better definitions but Richard again ducks the > main question. How should the rules police psychs, deviations, misbids, > CPUs, and the like? :( [Sven Pran] Like in all judgment rulings the director must establish facts as best he can. When in doubt he should normally rule against the apparently (alleged) offending side, and if at all possible he should avoid a ruling for which a possible appeal in case must be made by the non-offending side. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 24 14:04:51 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:04:51 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fielding misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA55462.105@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/10/2011 23:20, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Anagrammatic sock puppet Hilda R. Lirsch -> > > "Sloppy language encourages sloppy thinking." > > Jerry Fusselman -> > > Are there any differences in rulings between fielding psyches and > fielding misbids? > > One difference is that in the ACBL, you cannot psyche a strong, > artificial 2C opening, but you are allowed to misbid it. For my > question, let's ignore disciplinary rulings to focus primarily on > rectification. So I guess my question is whether the rulings for > rectifications for fielding psyches should be (or is) any different > from rectifications for fielding misbids. > > Maybe I should also stipulate that the director has convinced himself > that the misbid case was indeed a misbid, not MI. > > I do have an opinion on it, but it appears that David Stevenson > disagrees. I wonder who is right. > > Richard Hills -> > > For what it is worth, in my youth I was a sloppy thinker about > "fielding". But then David Stevenson unfairly used rigorous logic to > convince me to join David in accurately defining "fielding". > > So my Stevensonian logical replies to the issues raised by Jerry are: > > (a) There should be no differences in rulings between "fielding" > psyches and "fielding" misbids. In both cases the "fielding" is strong > evidence of a pseudo-psyche / pseudo-misbid, that is strong evidence > of a Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding. > AG : that's only because you take such an example. Say that the bidding goes : N p p 1S 1NT p 3NT And say that North holds a 3523 8-count.. The opening could be : - a psyche (3433 4-count) - ultra-light, in conformance with the system, an information which is written on the CC (5224 7-count) - ultra-light, because of a CPU - an error (i.e. South thought his partner had opened 1C) - legitimate, with 1NT being a psyche If North decides not to double 1NT, in accordance with his general principles (i.e. if 1NT was a psyche with a long minor, let them play that ridiculous contract) a) Do we rule that he fielded a psyche ? (in case there was one) b) Do we rule that he fielded a misbid ? (in case there was one) c) Do all TDs give the same answer to a) and b), whatever it is ? d) Deciding that there is a CPU should be totally disconnected from the responses to a) and b), mainly because they aren't obvious. e) Assuming that those players don't play any light 1-level openings (perhaps playing 5-card weak-2 bids in 3rd seat), is North allowed to guess correctly between Psyche (leading hs own suit) or Error (leading a spade) ? > (c) A player who employs an illegal undisclosed partnership > understanding has committed an infraction. If the partner then refuses > to "field", that does _not_ retrospectively cancel the infraction. See > below. > > > WBF Code of Practice, Disclosure of psychic tendencies -> > > A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its > psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, > although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic > in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the > psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an > equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, > since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the > understanding must be disclosed. > AG : of course. However, the CoP doesn't say how we ascertain that there was an understanding in such a case. The mind-reader's syndrome once again. For, if partner's actions can't be taken as evidence, what else can ? Best regards Alain > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111024/651403af/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Oct 24 14:18:46 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:18:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA557A6.4030502@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/10/2011 4:00, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > Alain Gottcheiner -> > > Since some other laws explicitly speak in that way ("could have known"), > > Richard Hills -> > > The phrase "could have been aware" in Law 23 means that a Director has > an easier time determining disputed facts, since the Director need not > (and should not) make any factual determination about whether or not > the offending player was intentionally ch**t*ng. > AG : in fact, I was spaeking of law seventy-something, about mannerisms. > > Alain Gottcheiner -> > > it is lawful, but is it fair? > > Nigel Guthrie -> > > My impression is that the excellent EBU protocol is the other way around. > [snip] > I would be interested in whether either Richard (Hills or Willey) can > devise a fairer procedure (to both sides), without employing > truth-serum or > water-boarding. > > Richard Hills -> > > As for "fair", that is a classic example of slovenly language. The > slovenly language of "fair" led to the foolish thought of the illegal > De Wael School, > AG : I think that you're fallen in the same trap. The fact that this way of acting is illegal doesn't change anything to the fact that it makes it easier to "save the board", the purpose (at least IMOBO) being not to help partner, but to avoid injuring the field by giving opponents an undeserved top. The fact that some good players who know much about honesty and fairness and little about TFLB do agree with me should at least be worth some consideration. BTW, this isn't the only case where some Belgian experts would like to deviate from the rules. The absurd rule which says that one shouldn't alert any double or redouble causes the same problem : those concerned with fairness will alert partner's double if it's highly special and they're sure that partner knows the system. One such case would be an arificial redouble of a one-bid. For some reason, the TD was never called after such an alert > which was predicated on a player preventing her partner from being > "unfairly" damaged. But that foolish thought is refuted by reading Law > 12B1, which proves that you cannot damage your partner, only damage > your opponents. > > And the excellent EBU Green / Amber / Red "Psyche" protocol may be > fair, but it is based on a slovenly definition of "psyche", hence is > just as illegally foolish as the De Wael School. > > This excellent but foolish EBU protocol defines an undisclosed > partnership understanding as an illegal Red "Psyche" if fielded, but > defines an undisclosed partnership understanding as a legal Amber > "Psyche" if not fielded. What's the problem? The problem is that the > word "psyche" is an exhausted idiom. The 2007 Drafting Committee > carefully and intelligently avoided the slovenly language of this > exhausted idiom by removing "psyche" from both Law 40A3 and also Law 40C1. > AG : okay, call it red-caught bid and amber-notproven bid if you wish. The fact is that bids that players will call psyches will fall into those categories, along with a third one. So, we're back to the initial problem : does the fact that the players use the word "psyche" make it a psyche ? No, but it compels us to write down and ewplain why, which means that removing the word without any comment wasn't a good idea. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111024/a076bb31/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 24 16:49:34 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:49:34 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Fielding misbids [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EA55462.105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4EA55462.105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:04:51 -0400, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 23/10/2011 23:20, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> Anagrammatic sock puppet Hilda R. Lirsch -> >> >> "Sloppy language encourages sloppy thinking." >> >> Jerry Fusselman -> >> >> Are there any differences in rulings between fielding psyches and >> fielding misbids? >> >> One difference is that in the ACBL, you cannot psyche a strong, >> artificial 2C opening, but you are allowed to misbid it. For my >> question, let's ignore disciplinary rulings to focus primarily on >> rectification. So I guess my question is whether the rulings for >> rectifications for fielding psyches should be (or is) any different >> from rectifications for fielding misbids. >> >> Maybe I should also stipulate that the director has convinced himself >> that the misbid case was indeed a misbid, not MI. >> >> I do have an opinion on it, but it appears that David Stevenson >> disagrees. I wonder who is right. >> >> Richard Hills -> >> >> For what it is worth, in my youth I was a sloppy thinker about >> "fielding". But then David Stevenson unfairly used rigorous logic to >> convince me to join David in accurately defining "fielding". >> >> So my Stevensonian logical replies to the issues raised by Jerry are: >> >> (a) There should be no differences in rulings between "fielding" >> psyches and "fielding" misbids. In both cases the "fielding" is strong >> evidence of a pseudo-psyche / pseudo-misbid, that is strong evidence >> of a Law 40C1 undisclosed partnership understanding. >> > AG : that's only because you take such an example. > > Say that the bidding goes : > > N > p p 1S 1NT > p 3NT > > > And say that North holds a 3523 8-count.. > The opening could be : > - a psyche (3433 4-count) > - ultra-light, in conformance with the system, an information which is > written on the CC (5224 7-count) > - ultra-light, because of a CPU > - an error (i.e. South thought his partner had opened 1C) > - legitimate, with 1NT being a psyche > > If North decides not to double 1NT, in accordance with his general > principles (i.e. if 1NT was a psyche with a long minor, let them play > that ridiculous contract) > a) Do we rule that he fielded a psyche ? (in case there was one) > b) Do we rule that he fielded a misbid ? (in case there was one) > c) Do all TDs give the same answer to a) and b), whatever it is ? > > d) Deciding that there is a CPU should be totally disconnected from the > responses to a) and b), mainly because they aren't obvious. > > e) Assuming that those players don't play any light 1-level openings > (perhaps playing 5-card weak-2 bids in 3rd seat), is North allowed to > guess correctly between Psyche (leading hs own suit) or Error (leading a > spade) ? > > > >> (c) A player who employs an illegal undisclosed partnership >> understanding has committed an infraction. If the partner then refuses >> to "field", that does _not_ retrospectively cancel the infraction. See >> below. >> > > >> >> WBF Code of Practice, Disclosure of psychic tendencies -> >> >> A partnership may not defend itself against an allegation that its >> psychic action is based upon an understanding by claiming that, >> although the partner had an awareness of the possibility of a psychic >> in the given situation, the partner's actions subsequent to the >> psychic have been entirely normal. The opponents are entitled to an >> equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, >> since it may affect their choice of action and for this reason the >> understanding must be disclosed. >> > AG : of course. However, the CoP doesn't say how we ascertain that there > was an understanding in such a case. The mind-reader's syndrome once > again. > For, if partner's actions can't be taken as evidence, what else can ? > > Would it be useful to see if the partner chose a logical alternative? From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 24 17:25:06 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:25:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] declarer's played card (L45C2(a)) In-Reply-To: <4EA4C87A.80807@nhcc.net> References: <4EA4C87A.80807@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:07:54 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 10/21/2011 3:58 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> Um, why is a famously ambiguous phrase from the 1997 laws still >> syntactically ambiguous? > > We've been told on this list that the WBFLC started the 2007 revision > process with an ambitious plan for a major overhaul and clarification of > the Laws. This was quashed by the ACBL. I don't know whether the > phrase in question would have been modified or not, but we know which > organization opposed substantial modifications. I can see the need for reorganization. But L16A looks like an attempt at reorganization, putting in one place what is AI and what is not. And it is pretty bad. (Did I ever mention that I do not like the process by which the laws were proofed for errors?) This sentence isn't a major overhaul, it is just one sentence that in the 1997 lawbook confused me for months and I finally wrote the ACBL about it when I realized there was a second meaning that was probably right and the ACBLLC made a minute clarifying it. So you would think it would get a spotlight of attention and not be syntactically ambiguous in the 2007 edition. When I went to the table, I read it one way and made one ruling. Making one side very angry. Then I realized the ambiguity and used some logic to conclude that the first meaning couldn't be correct. That led me to rule the other way, making the other side angry. Now, days later, I can conclude that the second way wasn't correct and it was the first way. But the whole problem would have been solved at the table if the sentence wasn't grammatically ambiguous. (Did I ever mention that I can imagine a better world for directors trying to use the lawbook?) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 24 22:59:25 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:59:25 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EA557A6.4030502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Apocryphal quote from the Vietnam War, "We had to destroy the village to save it." Apocryphal quote from blml discussion, "We had to intentionally infract the Laws to save the board (and, coincidentally, benefit our side)." Alain Gottcheiner -> AG : I think that you're fallen in the same trap. The fact that this way of acting is illegal doesn't change anything to the fact that it makes it easier to "save the board", the purpose (at least IMOBO) being not to help partner, but to avoid injuring the field by giving opponents an undeserved top. [snip] WBF Code of Practice, Function of an Appeal Committee -> The committee is to hear and make judgement upon an appeal duly made as the laws and the applicable regulations determine, from a ruling by a Director (in person or by an assistant on his behalf). An appeal against a ruling may ***only be made by a side present at the table*** where the ruling was given. ***No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome***. Richard Hills -> As the WBF Code of Practice demonstrably suggests, there is no such animal as "injuring the field". It is sloppy thinking to believe that a top score legally obtained under Law and regulation is "undeserved", and it is also sloppy thinking to believe that a lesser score caused by an opponent's intentional infraction is "deserved". 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/20111024/14cf22f3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 24 23:24:16 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:24:16 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01cc9226$3d466d60$b7d34820$@online.no> Message-ID: Law 85A1 -> When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. Sven Pran -> Like in all judgment rulings the director must establish facts as best he can. Richard Hills -> Yes. Law 84D -> The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. He seeks to restore equity. If in his judgement it is probable that a non-offending side has been damaged by an irregularity for which these laws provide no rectification he adjusts the score (see Law 12). Sven Pran -> When in doubt he should normally rule against the apparently (alleged) offending side, and if at all possible he should avoid a ruling for which a possible appeal in case must be made by the non-offending side. Richard Hills -> Yes and No. I take issue with "apparently (alleged) offending side" and "THE non-offending side". If the fact under dispute is whether or not there are ONE or TWO non-offending sides, the Director is not permitted to use Law 84D to rule Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Only if the existence of an offending side is beyond dispute may the Director use Law 84D to tiebreak other disputed facts. 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/20111024/0a047941/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 25 05:09:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:09:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EA557A6.4030502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills -> [snip] The 2007 Drafting Committee carefully and intelligently avoided the slovenly language of this exhausted idiom by removing "psyche" from both Law 40A3 and also Law 40C1. Alain Gottcheiner -> [snip] So, we're back to the initial problem: does the fact that the players use the word "psyche" make it a psyche? No, but it compels us to write down and explain why, which means that removing the word without any comment wasn't a good idea. 1997 Law 40A -> A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call ? such as a psychic bid ? or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. 2007 Law 40C1 -> A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. Richard Hills -> _Because_ the highly ambiguous word "psyche" is absent from the 2007 Law 40C1, that 2007 Law is easy for a Director to understand and apply. But in blml's bad old days before 2007, debates about the vague reference to "psychic bid" in the 1997 Law 40A attracted these diverse propositions: (a) If one partner has reason to suspect that the other partner has psyched, then the notional psyche remains a true psyche and need not be disclosed (now refuted by the 2007 Law 40C1's "partner has no more reason to be aware"), or (b) If one partner has reason to suspect that the other partner has psyched, but does not "field", then the notional psyche remains a true psyche and need not be disclosed (now refuted by the 2007 Law 40C1's "disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system"), or (c) If one partner has reason to suspect that the other partner has psyched, but discloses the notional psyche, then the notional psyche remains a true psyche and is automatically legal (now refuted by Law 40C1's "part of the partnership's methods", that is the pseudo-psyche may be an illegal convention infraction of the 2007 Law 40B5), and finally (d) A contemporary but ridiculous 2011 proposition. If a partnership has a particular explicit understanding, then they _necessarily_ have an undisclosed implicit understanding to grossly deviate from that announced understanding before _any_ 2007 Law 40C1 deviations have occurred. 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/20111025/a914d4f6/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Oct 25 06:24:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:24:07 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills -> [snip] Law 85B prohibits a Director from ruling that a particularly suspicious disputed fact is 50% true. The Director must instead apply the Schrodinger's Cat principle of ruling that the disputed fact is either 100% alive or 100% dead. [snip] Nigel Guthrie -> Richard's point here is hard to understand. The director must decide one way or the other based on his assessment of the evidence. Richard Hills -> Which is my point. Many years ago a New Zealand appeals committee incorrectly gave a split score by illegally ruling that Fact A was 50% true and also that Fact B was 50% true. Nigel Guthrie -> [The Director] is allowed to treat past history as evidence. Hardly ever can he be certain that his judgement is right. Richard Hills -> Perhaps a competent Director can hardly ever be _absolutely_ certain. But that competent Director will almost always be _practically_ certain beyond reasonable doubt. What's the problem? The problem is that the polemical language (e.g. "victims" or "undeserved top") of many blmlers give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946) -> Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111025/16965d8b/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Oct 25 09:36:21 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:36:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4EA557A6.4030502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701cc92e8$caee3ae0$60cab0a0$@online.no> To have a call classified as a psyche is a privilege granted by the director when he is convinced that the conditions in ?Definitions? and in Law 40A3 are satisfied. The fact that a player (or his partner) claims that he has psyched is certainly not sufficient; the director should investigate for possible indications of accidental misbid rather than deliberate psyche, and most important for indications of (concealed) partnership understandings whether explicit or implicit (from previous experience). Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sendt: 25. oktober 2011 05:10 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Richard Hills -> [snip] The 2007 Drafting Committee carefully and intelligently avoided the slovenly language of this exhausted idiom by removing "psyche" from both Law 40A3 and also Law 40C1. Alain Gottcheiner -> [snip] So, we're back to the initial problem: does the fact that the players use the word "psyche" make it a psyche? No, but it compels us to write down and explain why, which means that removing the word without any comment wasn't a good idea. 1997 Law 40A -> A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call ? such as a psychic bid ? or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. 2007 Law 40C1 -> A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership?s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. Richard Hills -> _Because_ the highly ambiguous word "psyche" is absent from the 2007 Law 40C1, that 2007 Law is easy for a Director to understand and apply. But in blml's bad old days before 2007, debates about the vague reference to "psychic bid" in the 1997 Law 40A attracted these diverse propositions: (a) If one partner has reason to suspect that the other partner has psyched, then the notional psyche remains a true psyche and need not be disclosed (now refuted by the 2007 Law 40C1's "partner has no more reason to be aware"), or (b) If one partner has reason to suspect that the other partner has psyched, but does not "field", then the notional psyche remains a true psyche and need not be disclosed (now refuted by the 2007 Law 40C1's "disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system"), or (c) If one partner has reason to suspect that the other partner has psyched, but discloses the notional psyche, then the notional psyche remains a true psyche and is automatically legal (now refuted by Law 40C1's "part of the partnership's methods", that is the pseudo-psyche may be an illegal convention infraction of the 2007 Law 40B5), and finally (d) A contemporary but ridiculous 2011 proposition. If a partnership has a particular explicit understanding, then they _necessarily_ have an undisclosed implicit understanding to grossly deviate from that announced understanding before _any_ 2007 Law 40C1 deviations have occurred. 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/20111025/2394783e/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 26 01:36:55 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:36:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50AD8508088E49218280834CCE743D29@G3> [Richard Hills] Perhaps a competent Director can hardly ever be _absolutely_ certain. But that competent Director will almost always be _practically_ certain beyond reasonable doubt. What's the problem? The problem is that the polemical language (e.g. "victims" or "undeserved top") of many blmlers give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. [Nige1] At last. we are making progress. Richard now admits that, in practice, the director shouldn?t delay until he is 100% certain. He concedes that ?beyond reasonable doubt? is enough. To be fair to both sides, however, I think that the the director should settle for much less than that. Say 60-70% probability. Richard still ducks the main question. What procedure should the director adopt to reach his ?CPU? decision. Of course, the WBFLC itself should define a protocol but the EBU has done well to try to plug the gap. The EBU uses terms, undefined or poorly defined by the WBF. But, until the WBF gets round to tightening up such definitions, the EBU is doing the best it can. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111025/ab19a04f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 26 05:34:51 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:34:51 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50AD8508088E49218280834CCE743D29@G3> Message-ID: Ogden Nash -> I give you now Professor Twist, A conscientious scientist. Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" And sent him off to distant jungles. Camped on a tropic riverside, One day he missed his loving bride. She had, the guide informed him later, Been eaten by an alligator. Professor Twist could not but smile. "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] Richard still ducks the main question. What procedure should the director adopt to reach his ?CPU? decision? [snip] Professor Richard Twist -> Correctness is my vade mecum.(1) The pejorative term "concealed partnership understanding" (CPU), which implies malice aforethought, was the language of the repealed 1997 Lawbook. The neutral term "undisclosed partnership understanding", avoiding that petitio principii fallacy, is the language of the current 2007 Lawbook. Since sloppy language encourages sloppy rulings, Directors are more likely to give unbiased rulings under the current 2007 Lawbook than they were under the repealed 1997 Lawbook. Kind regards, Hierophant Hills (1) The Naughty Preposition, by Morris Bishop (1947) I lately lost a preposition; It hid, I thought, beneath my chair; And angrily I cried,"Perdition! Up from out of in under there!" Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor, And yet I wonder, "What should he come Up from out of in under for?" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111026/4f667e39/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 26 09:37:39 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:37:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. In-Reply-To: References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <9883915.1368411319614659261.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Today's Bulletin at the World Championships includes on page 5 a general notice under my name. If you are able to help please make its message known wherever you can. - Grattan - +=+ From bpark56 at comcast.net Wed Oct 26 14:43:44 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:43:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. In-Reply-To: <9883915.1368411319614659261.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <9883915.1368411319614659261.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <4EA80080.8030109@comcast.net> On 10/26/11 3:37 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ Today's Bulletin at the World Championships includes on page 5 > a general > notice under my name. If you are able to help please make > its message known > wherever you can. > - Grattan - +=+ It would help if you were to provide a link. Google isn't helping much here. --bp From petereidt at t-online.de Wed Oct 26 14:48:02 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:48:02 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Open_invitation=2E?= In-Reply-To: <4EA80080.8030109@comcast.net> References: <4EA80080.8030109@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1RJ2tm-07nPyi0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> > On 10/26/11 3:37 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > +=+ Today's Bulletin at the World Championships includes on page 5 > > a general > > notice under my name. If you are able to help please make > > its message known > > wherever you can. > > - Grattan - +=+ > > > It would help if you were to provide a link. Google isn't helping much > here. http://www.worldbridge1.org/tourn/Veldhoven.11/Microsite/Bulletins/Veldhoven.2011.Bulletin.[11].pdf From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 26 15:18:45 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:18:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA808B5.3090403@ulb.ac.be> Le 24/10/2011 22:59, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Apocryphal quote from the Vietnam War, "We had to destroy the village > to save it." > Apocryphal quote from blml discussion, "We had to intentionally > infract the Laws to save the board (and, coincidentally, benefit our > side)." > > Alain Gottcheiner -> > > AG : I think that you're fallen in the same trap. The fact that this > way of acting is illegal doesn't change anything to the fact that it > makes it easier to "save the board", the purpose (at least IMOBO) > being not to help partner, but to avoid injuring the field by giving > opponents an undeserved top. > [snip] > > WBF Code of Practice, Function of an Appeal Committee -> > > The committee is to hear and make judgement upon an appeal duly made > as the laws and the applicable regulations determine, from a ruling by > a Director (in person or by an assistant on his behalf). An appeal > against a ruling may ***only be made by a side present at the table*** > where the ruling was given. ***No account is to be taken of the > interests of other contestants in the outcome***. > > Richard Hills -> > > As the WBF Code of Practice demonstrably suggests, there is no such > animal as "injuring the field". > AG : of course, this is not the same as the real non-existence of the beast. In the same way, the fact that some behaviour is illegal doesn't make it unfair, on even less does it make the opposite fair. It just means that the people in charge of the law had some reasons to ban it. > It is sloppy thinking to believe that a top score legally obtained > under Law and regulation is "undeserved", and it is also sloppy > thinking to believe that a lesser score caused by an opponent's > intentional infraction is "deserved". > AG : and neither is a top caused by an opponent's infraction (as opposed to bridge error). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111026/eb736d41/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Oct 26 15:22:43 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:22:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA809A3.9070209@ulb.ac.be> Le 25/10/2011 6:24, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Richard Hills -> > > [snip] > Law 85B prohibits a Director from ruling that a particularly > suspicious disputed fact is 50% true. The Director must instead apply > the Schrodinger's Cat principle of ruling that the disputed fact is > either 100% alive or 100% dead. > [snip] > > Nigel Guthrie -> > > Richard's point here is hard to understand. The director must decide > one way or the other based on his assessment of the evidence. > > Richard Hills -> > > Which is my point. Many years ago a New Zealand appeals committee > incorrectly gave a split score by illegally ruling that Fact A was 50% > true and also that Fact B was 50% true. > AG : this illegallity, albeit real, is strange. In other bridge cases, fuzzy logic applies, e.g. "declarer, if given the right information, would have found that crucial Queen" is given a truth value of 0.6 (most usual value used). Why it can't in the case you mention should be explained by officials. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20111026/6b130c95/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Oct 26 15:23:25 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:23:25 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. In-Reply-To: <4EA80080.8030109@comcast.net> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <9883915.1368411319614659261.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <4EA80080.8030109@comcast.net> Message-ID: <002401cc93e2$71532c70$53f98550$@online.no> > Robert Park [...] > It would help if you were to provide a link. Google isn't helping much here. > --bp [Sven Pran] Here is what I posted on Forums BBO: I have received the following from Grattan: +=+ Today's Bulletin [i.e. bulletin #11] at the World Championships includes on page 5 a general notice under my name. If you are able to help please make its message known wherever you can. - Grattan - +=+ The announcement reads: The Laws of Duplicate Bridge - An open invitation by Grattan Endicott The WBF Laws Committee is now giving some preliminary thought to the next review of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Its first decision is to issue a worldwide invitation to players, tournament directors, and NBOs (and as it may be, other members of bridge discussion groups), to send to me any thoughts they may have as to desirable changes in the Laws. I intend to divide suggestions received into two categories: (a) those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and (b) those which retain the current effect of the law but target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law. The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to institute very few category (a) changes but to concentrate mainly on proposals in category (b). All suggestions will receive consideration and we will see what responses this invitation brings. For ease of identification and sorting, I request: 1. That nothing reaches me before 1st December 2011, and 2. That the subject line of every email shall contain the words "Duplicate Bridge Law," which may be followed, if desired by a Law number. Given the likely number of suggestions that will be sent, please do not anticipate an acknowledgement of receipt unless there is something not fully understood. Do not assume that anything received hitherto will be on record - send it afresh if you wish it to have attention. Invitation issued Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Responses must be received no later than 31st December 2012. Send to grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sven From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 26 15:29:37 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:29:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2D6368033802495FBBB93EE809C1DAE3@G3> [Nigel] [snip] Richard still ducks the main question. What procedure should the director adopt to reach his ?CPU? decision? [snip] {Richard Hills] The pejorative term "concealed partnership understanding" (CPU), which implies malice aforethought, was the language of the repealed 1997 Lawbook. The neutral term "undisclosed partnership understanding", avoiding that petitio principii fallacy, is the language of the current 2007 Lawbook. Since sloppy language encourages sloppy rulings, Directors are more likely to give unbiased rulings under the current 2007 Lawbook than they were under the repealed 1997 Lawbook. [Nige2] Improving wording is a great idea but If Richard has no more concrete proposals, then can anybody else make constructive suggestions for investigating putative ?undisclosed partnership understandings?? IMO, the EBU protocol is OK. It is hard to understand destructive criticism of it. If anybody can devise an acceptable protocol then the WBFLC should share it with directors and players in TFLB. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Oct 26 15:48:01 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:48:01 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. In-Reply-To: <002401cc93e2$71532c70$53f98550$@online.no> References: <5C34F13B-747B-45D5-A17D-1E183AAA31BF@starpower.net> <9883915.1368411319614659261.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost><4EA80080.8030109@comcast.net> <002401cc93e2$71532c70$53f98550$@online.no> Message-ID: <00F9C2D25E25434CB05A31BF0F0A8AFB@G3> [Grattan Endicott] The Laws of Duplicate Bridge - An open invitation by Grattan Endicott The WBF Laws Committee is now giving some preliminary thought to the next review of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Its first decision is to issue a worldwide invitation to players, tournament directors, and NBOs (and as it may be, other members of bridge discussion groups), to send to me any thoughts they may have as to desirable changes in the Laws. I intend to divide suggestions received into two categories: (a) those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and (b) those which retain the current effect of the law but target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law. The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to institute very few category (a) changes but to concentrate mainly on proposals in category (b). All suggestions will receive consideration and we will see what responses this invitation brings. For ease of identification and sorting, I request: 1. That nothing reaches me before 1st December 2011, and 2. That the subject line of every email shall contain the words "Duplicate Bridge Law," which may be followed, if desired by a Law number. Given the likely number of suggestions that will be sent, please do not anticipate an acknowledgement of receipt unless there is something not fully understood. Do not assume that anything received hitherto will be on record - send it afresh if you wish it to have attention. Invitation issued Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Responses must be received no later than 31st December 2012. Send to grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk [Nigel] Fantastic! This meta-suggestion won't wait until December: Why not create a suggestions conference for the submission of proposals - Some initial wisely chosen topic headings would concentrate minds and facilitate classification (contributors could still add their own topics). - moderators could organise and collate suggestions as they arrive (saving time later). - reduce duplicate suggestions (polls could be a rough measure of popularity). - reduce the incidence of flawed suggestions (after somebody has pointed out the flaws). - result in suggestions being honed and improved, *incrementally* (and *before* publication). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 26 23:23:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:23:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <50AD8508088E49218280834CCE743D29@G3> Message-ID: Law 85A1 -> In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. Richard Hills, prior sloppy post -> [snip] Perhaps a competent Director can hardly ever be _absolutely_ certain. But that competent Director will almost always be _practically_ certain beyond reasonable doubt. [snip] Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] To be fair to both sides, however, I think that the director should settle for much less than that. Say 60-70% probability. [snip] Richard Hills, current clarifying post -> As required by Law 85A1, to be fair to both sides the Director should settle for much less than that, a 50+% probability. What I should have said is that a competent Director diligently collects all available evidence, and diligently weighs that evidence, so as an _outcome_ (definitely not as a _criterion_) that competent Director is almost always practically certain beyond reasonable doubt that that competent Director has correctly assessed the disputed fact. Meanwhile an incompetent Director tends to rush to judgement on just one piece of evidence. Example: An incompetent Director arrives at the table, notices that a defender has exposed two cards, announces "Those two cards are major penalty cards," then immediately leaves the table. If instead a competent Director arrived at that table, she would notice that a defender has exposed two cards, but she would also notice that that defender's lap was covered in hot coffee. She would firstly get a towel for the defender, then secondly ask declarer, "Did you spill coffee into the defender's lap?" When declarer sheepishly responded "Yes," the competent Director would rule that the exposed cards could be retracted. The competent Director would additionally rule that the retracted cards were AI to the other defender, but UI to declarer. What's the problem? The problem is that the EBU Amber "Psyche" regulation encourages Directors to be incompetent, due to its focus on just one piece of evidence, so-called "fielding". 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/20111026/c4b784ee/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Oct 26 23:41:37 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:41:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation (b) - reformat of Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott -> (b) those which retain the current effect of the law but target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law. Richard Hills -> Attached is a proposed reformat of the Laws. This reformat will necessarily involve renumbering of the Laws, but they are listed below by their current Law numbers and/or paragraphs. 0. Table of Contents [The Table of Contents does not have the status of Law] 1. Principles The Introduction (first paragraph), Law 72A, Law 72B1, Law 73C, Law 74A2 2. Authorities The Introduction (third and fourth paragraphs), Law 10A, Law 80, Law 81A, Law 93B3, Law 93C2 3. Facts and Disputed Facts Law 84, Law 85 4. Correct procedures Law 1, Law 2, Law 3, Law 4, Law 5, Law 6A, Law 6B, Law 6C, Law 6E, Law 7, Law 8, Law 16A1, Law 16A2, Law 16D1, Law 17A, Law 17B, Law 17C, Law 17E, Law 18, Law 19, Law 20B, Law 20C, Law 20D, Law 20F1, Law 20F2, Law 20F3, Law 20G, Law 21A, Law 22, Law 25A, Law 28A, Law 34, Law 41, Law 42, Law 44, Law 45A, Law 45B, Law 45C, Law 47, Law 48, Law 59, Law 65, Law 66, Law 72B2, Law 73D1, Law 73E, Law 74A, Law 75C, Law 77, Law 78, Law 79, Law 81B, Law 81C (first sentence), Law 81D 5. Rectification of irregular procedures Law 6D, Law 9A, Law 9B, Law 11A, Law 13, Law 14, Law 15, Law 16C, Law 17D, Law 20A, Law 27A, Law 29A, Law 33, Law 36A, Law 37A, Law 38D, Law 39B, Law 46, Law 53, Law 58A, Law 60A, Law 68, Law 69, Law 70, Law 71, Law 75A, Law 76, Law 82, Law 86C, Law 87 6. Rectification of simple infractions Law 9C, Law 10B, Law 10C, Law 12, Law 16A3, Law 16A4, Law 16B, Law 16D2, Law 20E, Law 20F4, Law 20F5, Law 20F6, Law 21B, Law 24, Law 25B, Law 26, Law 27B, Law 27C, Law 27D, Law 28B, Law 29B, Law 29C, Law 30, Law 31, Law 32, Law 35, Law 36B, Law 37B, Law 38A, Law 38B, Law 38C, Law 39A, Law 39C, Law 40, Law 45D, Law 45E, Law 49, Law 50, Law 51, Law 52, Law 54, Law 55, Law 56, Law 57, Law 58B, Law 60B, Law 60C, Law 61, Law 62, Law 63, Law 64, Law 67, Law 73A, Law 73B1, Law 74B, Law 74C, Law 75B, Law 81C3, Law 81C4, Law 81C5, Law 86A, Law 86B, Law 92, Law 93 7. Aggravated (including "could well have known") infractions Law 11B, Law 12C3 (second sentence), Law 23, Law 40B5 (second sentence), Law 40C1 (third sentence), Law 40C3(b), Law 43, Law 45F, Law 72B3, Law 73B2, Law 73D2, Law 73F, Law 79A2, Law 81C1, Law 81C4, Law 81C6, Law 81C7, Law 86D, Law 90, Law 91 8. Language and Interpretation The Introduction (second, fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs), The Definitions, Law 81C2 9. Index [The Index does not have the status of Law] 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/20111026/ef717648/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 27 00:10:47 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:10:47 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation (a) - 2018 Law 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Grattan Endicott -> [snip] (a) those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and (b) those which retain the current effect of the law but target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law. The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to institute very few category (a) changes [snip] For ease of identification and sorting, I request: 1. That nothing reaches me before 1st December 2011, and [snip] Richard Hills -> Rather than passively wait for the 1st December opening of submissions, I thought that my radical rewrite of a hypothetical 2018 Law 12 could be improved by blml advice (I am particularly interested in burying the hatchet with Steve Willner, and receiving Steve's thoughtful advice). Kind regards, Richard Hills 2018 LAW 12 - SCORE ADJUSTMENT, DIRECTOR'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B, or on the Director's own initiative, the Director may award an adjusted score when empowered to do so by these Laws (in team play see Law 86). This includes: 1. (a) The Director may award an adjusted score when the Director judges that a rectification provided in these Laws does not redress damage (see B below) to the non-offending side for the particular type of infraction committed at the same table* by the offending side. (b) The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe to the offending side or unduly advantageous to the non-offending side. 2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below). 3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity. B. Objective of Score Adjustment The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to remove all advantages gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, a non-offending side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation of the non-offending side at the instant before the infraction ? but see C1(b). C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. (a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, the Director does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play. (b) If subsequent to the irregularity the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a ridiculous** error (unrelated to the infraction), or by wild or gambling action, then the non-offending side receives partial rectification only, ignoring such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, receives all of the score that was its expectation at the instant before its infraction (i.e. the non-offending side's subsequent error is irrelevant for the calculation of the score awarded to the offending side by the Director). (c) In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results. (But an illegally obtained*** result, potential or actual, must not be included in the weightings.) (d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score. (e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of (c): (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favourable result that was likely at the instant before the infraction. (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable at the instant before the infraction. (f) The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. 2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [and see C1 (d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault. This clause is merely a default, and may be freely amended by the Regulating Authority. (For example, a regulation may be created capping the number of average plus scores that a contestant may gain in a single session.) (b) When the Director awards an artificial adjusted score of average plus or minus at international match points that score is normally plus or minus 3 imps, but this may be varied as Law 86A allows. (c) The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in imps). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in imps) on the other boards of that session. This clause is merely a default, and may be freely amended by the Regulating Authority. (For example, a regulation may be created defining a contestant's average minus as the reciprocal of their opponent's more than 60% average plus.) 3. In individual events the Director enforces the rectifications in these Laws, and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending side even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity. But the Director shall not award a procedural penalty against the offender's partner if of the opinion that the partner is in no way to blame. 4. When the Director awards non-balancing adjusted scores in knockout play, each contestant's score on the board is calculated separately and the average of them is assigned to each. * A ruling from the Director may be sought only by a side present at the table where the irregularity occurred (note that the offending side may draw attention to its own infraction). The Director'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"). ** "Ridiculous" is assessed by the class of player involved. For a novice player a "ridiculous" error would be extremely rare (e.g. the rare major mechanical error of revoking). *** But if a result illegally obtained might have been legally obtained by an alternative legal route, then that result can be included in the weightings. For example, West opens 1H, East hesitantly raises to 2H (demonstrably suggesting extra values), West illegally jumps to 4H and makes ten tricks for 420. If West's only legal logical alternative was a long suit trial bid of 3C, and if East's only logical alternative (due to fitting honours in clubs) was to accept the trial bid and raise to 4H, then the score is adjusted from an illegally obtained 420 to a legally obtained 420. Note that despite the fact that the adjusted score is coincidentally identical to the table score, West has still committed a Law 73C infraction and hence the Director may judge to apply a procedural penalty to West. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111026/c175e78d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 27 00:20:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:20:59 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00F9C2D25E25434CB05A31BF0F0A8AFB@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> Fantastic! This meta-suggestion won't wait until December: Why not create a suggestions conference for the submission of proposals [snip] Richard Hills -> This suggestions conference already exists. Its email address is: blml at rtflb.org :-) :-) 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/20111026/1b86d0d4/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 27 02:11:37 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:11:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <00F9C2D25E25434CB05A31BF0F0A8AFB@G3> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie -> [snip] (polls could be a rough measure of popularity) [snip] Richard Hills -> A hypothetical Law which is popular amongst the experts of Liege or the non-experts of Reading is not necessarily a useful Law. A law for capital punishment has been consistently popular amongst the burghers of Australia, but the members of the Australian parliament abolished capital punishment for good and sufficient reasons. Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol (1774) -> Parliament is not a _congress_ of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a _deliberative_ assembly of _one_ nation, with _one_ interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of _parliament_. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111027/7a1b42a5/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Thu Oct 27 11:20:22 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:20:22 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <243CB7FDD0934FB7A98C90C2AB99B5D1@G3> [Nige1] [snip] (polls could be a rough measure of popularity) [snip] [Richard Hills] A hypothetical Law which is popular amongst the experts of Liege or the non-experts of Reading is not necessarily a useful Law. A law for capital punishment has been consistently popular amongst the burghers of Australia, but the members of the Australian parliament abolished capital punishment for good and sufficient reasons. [Nige2] The idea of a suggestions forum, with universal access, and some pre-titled topics and polls, was mainly *to reduce duplicate and daft proposals*. Nevertheless, Richard's idea of capital punishment for bridge infractions has merit. It prevents recidivism and introduces a welcome deterrent element. Unfortunately, it would be unpopular. In principle, however, I see no disadvantage in adopting workable rules of which ordinary players approve (even if directors demur). However stupid and ignorant we are, we players are the people who must understand the rules to enjoy the game. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Oct 27 11:51:07 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 10:51:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Open invitation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <243CB7FDD0934FB7A98C90C2AB99B5D1@G3> Message-ID: <8B42D7D76964454892D503EEA0CF178A@changeme1> Most players have lttle idea of the laws. The dummy procedures and quitted trick-fondling at the current World (open) event are a nightmare. If club players are watching that, and the next night they get a rollicking / fine for the same things... > [Nige2] > The idea of a suggestions forum, with universal access, and some > pre-titled > topics and polls, was mainly *to reduce duplicate and daft proposals*. > Nevertheless, Richard's idea of capital punishment for bridge infractions > has merit. It prevents recidivism and introduces a welcome deterrent > element. Unfortunately, it would be unpopular. In principle, however, I > see no disadvantage in adopting workable rules of which ordinary players > approve (even if directors demur). However stupid and ignorant we are, we > players are the people who must understand the rules to enjoy the game. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 27 12:31:04 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:31:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <243CB7FDD0934FB7A98C90C2AB99B5D1@G3> References: <243CB7FDD0934FB7A98C90C2AB99B5D1@G3> Message-ID: <8250546.234561319711464914.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ BLML is a forum. Its purpose is to accommodate discussion, argument, in relation to the Laws of the game. Why the lollipop would you require to start up another talking shop with the same objective? My expectation is that however much subscribers here refine their eventual submissions there will be much duplication because BLML constitutes only a minimal portion of the population from which the committee has invited submissions. However, the filtering process that you are recommending has the advantage that a proposal forwarded to me after such filtering ought to be economically phrased and therefore impactive. - Grattan - +=+ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >---- Original Message---- >From: g3 at nige1.com >Date: 27/10/2011 10:20 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Open invitation. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >[Nige1] [snip] (polls could be a rough measure of popularity) [snip] > >[Richard Hills] >A hypothetical Law which is popular amongst the experts of Liege or the >non-experts of Reading is not necessarily a useful Law. A law for capital >punishment has been consistently popular amongst the burghers of Australia, >but the members of the Australian parliament abolished capital punishment >for good and sufficient reasons. > > [Nige2] >The idea of a suggestions forum, with universal access, and some pre- titled >topics and polls, was mainly *to reduce duplicate and daft proposals*. >Nevertheless, Richard's idea of capital punishment for bridge infractions >has merit. It prevents recidivism and introduces a welcome deterrent >element. Unfortunately, it would be unpopular. In principle, however, I >see no disadvantage in adopting workable rules of which ordinary players >approve (even if directors demur). However stupid and ignorant we are, we >players are the people who must understand the rules to enjoy the game. > > > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml> From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Oct 27 17:14:01 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:14:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] The Collaboration Landscape [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA97539.3020000@ulb.ac.be> Le 26/10/2011 23:23, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > > As required by Law 85A1, to be fair to both sides the Director should > settle for much less than that, a 50+% probability. What I should have > said is that a competent Director diligently collects all available > evidence, and diligently weighs that evidence, so as an _outcome_ > (definitely not as a _criterion_) that competent Director is almost > always practically certain beyond reasonable doubt that that competent > Director has correctly assessed the disputed fact. > AG my personal esperience is that you're much too optimistic. While the example about spilled coffee is easy, disputed facts about tempo or mannerism can seldom be assessed with near-certainty by even the most scrupulous TDs. > > What's the problem? The problem is that the EBU Amber "Psyche" > regulation encourages Directors to be incompetent, due to its focus on > just one piece of evidence, so-called "fielding". > AG : you can surely put it that way. I prefer considering that it encourages players to disclose their partner's style. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111027/b6987a8f/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 20:58:18 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:58:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <8250546.234561319711464914.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <243CB7FDD0934FB7A98C90C2AB99B5D1@G3> <8250546.234561319711464914.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <4EA9A9CA.7030903@gmail.com> On 10/27/2011 06:31 AM, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk wrote: > +=+ BLML is a forum. Its purpose is to accommodate discussion, argument, > in > relation to the Laws of the game. Why the lollipop would you require > to start > up another talking shop with the same objective? Nigel's idea of a *forum*, assuming that he means a web-based forum, has much to recommend it. As anyone with much experience of mailing lists will know, a list only has to get over a certain amount of traffic before it starts getting complaints from people who "didn't sign up for all this mail", subscribe requests, unsubscribe requests, etc. etc. If you use a mailing list, you get everything sent to it. A web forum allows you to be a lot more selective in your reading. Decent forum software will allow you to watch specific threads in which you might be interested, even being e-mailed by the software when someone adds a comment to the particular thread(s) in which you're interested. I'd recommend a look at http://forums.bridgebase.com if you want a practical illustration of the differences. Yes, you can browse them as a guest, there will just be a few options greyed out. If the WBF had a web forum set up, you might manage to get most of the population of which BLML is only a minimal part to put all their ideas and comments in the same place - and as you say, the more refinement that can take place before you have to sort out the whole mess, the easier it will make your job. Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 27 22:50:23 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:50:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EA9A9CA.7030903@gmail.com> Message-ID: Paul Simon, Sound of Silence (1964) -> People talking without speaking People hearing without listening... "Fools," said I, "You do not know Silence like a cancer grows." Grattan Endicott -> +=+ BLML is a forum. Its purpose is to accommodate discussion, argument, in relation to the Laws of the game. Why the lollipop would you require to start up another talking shop with the same objective? [snip] Brian Meadows -> Nigel's idea of a *forum*, assuming that he means a web-based forum, has much to recommend it. As anyone with much experience of mailing lists will know, a list only has to get over a certain amount of traffic before it starts getting complaints from people who "didn't sign up for all this mail", subscribe requests, unsubscribe requests, etc. etc. Richard Hills -> Thanks to Henk modifying the blml software, this list no longer receives non-bridge spam. And thanks to the WBF Laws Committee specifically outlawing the De Wael School, there are no longer zillions of posts on that topic. Indeed, recently traffic on blml dropped to zero for a few days, prompting a blmler to send in a test message. Brian Meadows -> If you use a mailing list, you get everything sent to it. A web forum allows you to be a lot more selective in your reading. Decent forum software will allow you to watch specific threads in which you might be interested, even being e-mailed by the software when someone adds a comment to the particular thread(s) in which you're interested. Richard Hills -> Not a problem; decent threading software exists even for text-based discussion forums. And I do not have such threading software, but pressing the Delete key takes me only a few seconds. Brian Meadows -> I'd recommend a look at http://forums.bridgebase.com if you want a practical illustration of the differences. [snip] Richard Hills -> I _cannot_ look at those forums, because my work Net Nanny classifies them as a gaming site, and I do not have a home computer. I suspect that a few other blmlers may also prefer a simple email discussion group. 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/20111027/17172fe4/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 22:57:18 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:57:18 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4EA9A9CA.7030903@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > And thanks to the WBF Laws Committee specifically outlawing the De Wael > School, there are no longer zillions of posts on that topic. > Any chance you can send me a pointer to the relevant minutes? -- 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/20111027/51ab8f6b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 27 23:04:32 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:04:32 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 75 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: I request comments and suggestions on the attached hypothetical Law 75 before its finally filtered form is formally forwarded to Grattan Endicott. Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Hierophant Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator 2018 LAW 75 - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's enquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits. A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership understanding (see Law 40), South, having heard North's explanation, knows that South's 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorized information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If South does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorized information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values. B. Mistaken Explanation The actual partnership understanding is that 2D is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North's explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South partnership understanding (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North subsequently becomes aware of North's mistake, North must immediately notify the Director. But South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if South is to be declarer or dummy, must call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, South must call the Director and must correct the explanation when play ends (but not earlier). C. Mistaken Call The partnership understanding is as explained ? 2D is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description* of the North-South partnership understanding; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and South has no responsibility to do so subsequently. * A partnership understanding must be described accurately in response to lawful enquiry (this includes accurately alerting and announcing as prescribed by the Regulating Authority), and the explanation given must not aim to describe what the explainer believes as to the contents of either hand. When zero partnership understanding exists the description must be "zero partnership understanding exists"; a player must not instead offer guesses such as "I take it to mean..." or "I'm treating it as..." since such guesses improperly give unauthorized information to partner. But "zero partnership understanding exists" is an incorrect description if there is an implicit partnership understanding (see Laws 40A1(a) and 40C1). -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111027/22877001/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 27 23:29:00 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:29:00 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 40 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: I request comments and suggestions on the attached hypothetical Law 40 before its finally filtered form is formally forwarded to Grattan Endicott. Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Hierophant Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator 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. C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action 1. A player may deviate from a pre-existing mutual partnership understanding always provided that the player's partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents the Director shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. 2. Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announced methods. The opponents do not have any right to an accurate description of the cards a player holds; they merely have the right to an accurate description of the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding. See Law 75 in general and Law 75C in particular. 3. (a) Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to that player's memory***, calculation or technique. (b) Repeated violations of requirements to disclose partnership understandings may be penalized. * The Regulating Authority is not allowed to unreasonably deem a call to be a special partnership understanding. That is, an American RA may not deem the strong 1NT opening to be a SPU, and an English RA may not deem the weak 1NT opening to be a SPU. For example, many years ago an American women's team and an English women's team clashed in an international match. Since the preferred 1NT opening of each team was an SPU from the other team's point of view, both non-playing captains agreed that all 1NT opening bids should be alerted. ** For example, if the auction proceeds -> WEST.........................EAST 1NT (15-17 hcp balanced).....2H (transfer to spades) 5D -> East need not disclose that West is more likely to hold eight diamonds and zero hearts than eight diamonds and zero clubs, because it is a matter generally known to bridge players that it is easy to missort a single 8-card diamond suit into two 4-card red suits. *** Remembering one's pre-existing mutual partnership understandings is normally permitted under Law 16A1(d). But if one partner reminds the other partner of the partnership methods that is an infraction of this law and the Director must determine under Law 85 whether the methods had been forgotten. For example, this case occurred in Australia many years ago. WEST.........................EAST 1NT (15-18 hcp balanced).....2D (transfer to hearts, East alerted) East explained that the reason for her Alert was that her partner often forgot the technical requirement to Alert, but her partner never forgot that 2D was a transfer. The Directors agreed with East and let the subsequent East-West auction stand without any 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/20111027/aeb4c56f/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Oct 27 23:38:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:38:28 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills -> [snip] And thanks to the WBF Laws Committee specifically outlawing the De Wael School, there are no longer zillions of posts on that topic. [snip] Richard Willey -> Any chance you can send me a pointer to the?relevant?minutes? WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008, page 5 http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/wbfinfo/WBFlawscommitte/default.asp LAW 20 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111027/58765f30/attachment.html From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 00:31:29 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:31:29 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks much! On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:38 PM, wrote: > Richard Hills -> > > [snip] > And thanks to the WBF Laws Committee specifically outlawing the De Wael > School, there are no longer zillions of posts on that topic. > [snip] > > Richard Willey -> > > Any chance you can send me a pointer to the relevant minutes? > > WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008, page 5 > http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/wbfinfo/WBFlawscommitte/default.asp > > LAW 20 > > 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. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > -- 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/20111027/af41367a/attachment-0001.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 01:37:48 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:37:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA9EB4C.6070202@gmail.com> On 10/27/2011 04:50 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Grattan Endicott -> > > +=+ BLML is a forum. Its purpose is to accommodate discussion, > argument, in relation to the Laws of the game. Why the lollipop would > you require to start up another talking shop with the same objective? > [snip] > > Brian Meadows -> > > Nigel's idea of a *forum*, assuming that he means a web-based forum, > has much to recommend it. As anyone with much experience of mailing > lists will know, a list only has to get over a certain amount of > traffic before it starts getting complaints from people who "didn't > sign up for all this mail", subscribe requests, unsubscribe requests, > etc. etc. > > Richard Hills -> > > Thanks to Henk modifying the blml software, this list no longer > receives non-bridge spam. And thanks to the WBF Laws Committee > specifically outlawing the De Wael School, there are no longer > zillions of posts on that topic. Indeed, recently traffic on blml > dropped to zero for a few days, prompting a blmler to send in a test > message. > Yes. But, quoting Grattan, "BLML constitutes only a minimal portion of the population from which the committee has invited submissions". I was suggesting that a single forum might be capable of gathering responses from ALL internet-using sources, hence the quantity of BLML traffic isn't (presumably) the major constituent. > Brian Meadows -> > > If you use a mailing list, you get everything sent to it. A web forum > allows you to be a lot more selective in your reading. Decent forum > software will allow you to watch specific threads in which you might > be interested, even being e-mailed by the software when someone adds a > comment to the particular thread(s) in which you're interested. > > Richard Hills -> > > Not a problem; decent threading software exists even for text-based > discussion forums. And I do not have such threading software, but > pressing the Delete key takes me only a few seconds. > Right, but once again, I think you're only considering BLML traffic. I'm assuming from Grattan's comment (above) that the traffic in a forum set up to (try to) aggregate all responses would be many times that carried by BLML. The difference between threads in the context of a mailing list and threads in the context of a web-based forum is that the mailing list still means that you receive each and every posting. Those who use web-based mail may not see this as being as much of a problem as someone who gets their mail via POP3 or IMAP. > Brian Meadows -> > > I'd recommend a look at http://forums.bridgebase.comif you want a > practical illustration of the differences. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > I _cannot_ look at those forums, because my work Net Nanny classifies > them as a gaming site, and I do not have a home computer. I'm fortunate enough to never have worked for an organisation employing such software, even when working for a British QUANGO, but try http://forums.linuxmint.com as an alternative (the content may be a little less meaningful to you, but the forum software is the same). If your net connection doesn't like non-Gatesian software, you could even use http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en/categories I suspect > that a few other blmlers may also prefer a simple email discussion group. > Sure, but IMHO Nigel's idea isn't as daft as Grattan and his lollipops seem to think. Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 28 01:44:14 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:44:14 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: I request comments and suggestions on the attached hypothetical Default Alert Law before its finally filtered form is formally forwarded to Grattan Endicott. Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Hierophant Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator 2018 Appendix A, Default Alert Procedure This appendix is merely a default, which is and may be over-ridden by past or future alert procedures specified by the Regulating Authority. The following classes of calls should be alerted: 1. All artificial calls. 2. All natural (non-artificial) calls which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. See Law 40B. 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. 4. If screens are in use, players are especially encouraged to be generous to opponents in the exchange of information. If screens are not in use, then do NOT alert the following: 5. All doubles (but unusual doubles should be pre-alerted at the start of the round or match). 6. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. 7. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Whether or not screens are in use, all players must respect the spirit* of this alert procedure as well as the letter. * The spirit is to disclose, not as grudgingly little as legally possible, but rather as generously much as is legally permitted, and as succinct but comprehensible as practical. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111027/ba3b6021/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 02:05:23 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:05:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EA9F1C3.5030404@gmail.com> Try an (old-fashioned?) 2NT response to a Precision 1D opener, 15+ HCP and Baron, but generally made on a semi-balanced or balanced hand. Without screens, I can see arguments for it being both alertable and non-alertable, unless you specify which set of criteria takes precedence. Brian. On 10/27/2011 07:44 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > I request comments and suggestions on the attached hypothetical > Default Alert Law before its finally filtered form is formally > forwarded to Grattan Endicott. > > Kind regards, > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Hierophant > Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movies coordinator > > 2018 Appendix A, Default Alert Procedure > > This appendix is merely a default, which is and may be over-ridden by > past or future alert procedures specified by the Regulating Authority. > > The following classes of calls should be alerted: > > 1. All artificial calls. > > 2. All natural (non-artificial) calls which have special meanings or > which are based on or lead to special understandings between the > partners. See Law 40B. > > 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or > overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to > opening bids of one of a suit. > > 4. If screens are in use, players are especially encouraged to be > generous to opponents in the exchange of information. > > If screens are not in use, then do NOT alert the following: > > 5. All doubles (but unusual doubles should be pre-alerted at the start > of the round or match). > > 6. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, > or suggests a no-trump contract. > > 7. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of > conventional calls on the first round of the auction. > > Whether or not screens are in use, all players must respect the > spirit* of this alert procedure as well as the letter. > > * The spirit is to disclose, not as grudgingly little as legally > possible, but rather as generously much as is legally permitted, and > as succinct but comprehensible as practical. > > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 28 02:14:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:14:31 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EA9EB4C.6070202@gmail.com> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott -> [snip] BLML constitutes only a minimal portion of the population from which the committee has invited submissions. However, the filtering process that you are recommending has the advantage that a proposal forwarded to me after such filtering ought to be economically phrased and therefore impactive. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Brian Meadows -> [snip] I was suggesting that a single forum might be capable of gathering responses from ALL internet-using sources, hence the quantity of BLML traffic isn't (presumably) the major constituent. ..... Right, but once again, I think you're only considering BLML traffic. I'm assuming from Grattan's comment (above) that the traffic in a forum set up to (try to) aggregate all responses would be many times that carried by BLML. [snip] Richard Hills -> No, the _quantity_ of blml suggestions during the many years leading up to the creation of the 2007 Lawbook were, I believe, far greater than the aggregate of all other suggestions. Of course the _quality_ of blml suggestions were much less than the _quality_ of private suggestions from two Aussie National Directors. As I recall, Grattan compared reading blml posts as comparable to panning for flecks of gold amongst zillions of kilos of riverbed mud. But an auto-filter from active blmlers with expertise, for example Peter Eidt and Sven Pran, would assist the "single forum" -- Grattan Endicott -- to prepare great truths for the Drafting Committee to consider from and after 2013. George Bernard Shaw, Annajanska (1919) -> All great truths begin as blasphemies. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111028/81b62c64/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 28 02:30:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:30:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EA9F1C3.5030404@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows -> Try an (old-fashioned?) 2NT response to a Precision 1D opener, 15+ HCP and Baron, but generally made on a semi-balanced or balanced hand. Without screens, I can see arguments for it being both alertable and non-alertable, unless you specify which set of criteria takes precedence. =+= Extracts from Hypothetical 2018 Definitions -> Alert ? A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation. Artificial Call ? not a Natural Call (q.v.) 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. Pre-Alert ? A notification at the beginning of the round or match, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, warning the opponents of frequent and/or important partnership understandings, especially special partnership understandings. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111028/49261525/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 28 02:58:38 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:58:38 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The most important Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: I request comments and suggestions on the attached hypothetical Law 74 (the most important Law in the Lawbook) before its finally filtered form is formally forwarded to Grattan Endicott. Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Hierophant Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator 2018 LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude 1. A player must maintain a courteous attitude at all times. 2. A player must carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player (including partner) or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. This clause is the most important of all clauses in the entire 2018 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. 3. Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. 4. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents (especially in the exchange of information behind screens). B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 1. paying insufficient attention to the game (but unintentional misbids are fully legal unless Law 40C1 applies). 2. making gratuitous comments during the auction and play. 3. detaching a card before it is the player's turn to play. 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (for example, in playing on although knowing that all the tricks surely belong to the player) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. 5. summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous* to the Director and/or discourteous to other players (including partner). C. Violations of Procedure The following are examples of violations of procedure: 1. using different designations for the same call. 2. indicating approval or disapproval of a call or play. 3. indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed. 4. commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success. 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing that player's cards or of observing the place from which that player draws a card (while it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent's card**, it is equally appropriate to avert one's gaze or advise opponents to better conceal their cards). 6. showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding one's cards). 7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. 8. leaving the table needlessly before the round is called. * Discourtesy includes a frivolous summoning of the Director when the summoner could well have known that such a summoning was unnecessary. ** See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown cards to an opponent intentionally. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111028/1999e993/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 28 03:21:06 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:21:06 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Introduction filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Duck Soup (1933 film), slightly amended -> Why, a four-year-old child could understand this Introduction. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail of it. INTRODUCTION TO THE 2018 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. There have been many developments in Duplicate Bridge over the last ten years and there are no signs that these changes have stopped. The task that confronted the Drafting Committee was to ensure the Laws were clarified so as to fix past ambiguities; and also to establish principles that can give guidance, rather than to retain prescriptive details (see, for example, the abolition of Law 26 lead restrictions). For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. For the further avoidance of further doubt, these are the principles regarding the creation of misinformation (MI), and the use of unauthorized information (use-of-UI) -> 1. It is an over-riding principle there should not be MI. It does not matter if there is consequential creation of UI. For further information on MI, see Law 40. 2. Bridge is a thinking game, so therefore unintentional creation of UI is not an infraction. 3. On the other hand, use-of-UI (selection from amongst logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information) is always an infraction. For the definition of "logical alternative" see Law 16. Example: The partner of a defender who exposed a Penalty Card (major or minor) must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. Directors again have been given considerably more discretionary powers. There are fewer automatic rectifications. Bridge is played in different ways in different countries so the Laws give more power to Regulating Authorities to make controlling regulations. Artificial bidding is a fact of life so an attempt has been made to solve problems, or to allow Regulating Authorities to solve problems, that arise when something goes wrong. We have tried to clarify the ruling idea that "a specific Law over-rides a more general Law" by including cross-references when it is unclear which of two Laws is more specific. The Table of Contents which was absent in some versions of the 2007 Lawbook has been restored in this 2018 Lawbook. Many thanks to Rick Assad for preparing the Index (but the Index lacks any Lawful power). Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference. Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor's rights but not often penalised), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger ? just short of "must not". Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the feminine includes the masculine, and vice versa. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111028/eaae3635/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 28 04:39:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:39:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tom Stoppard, Night and Day (1978) -> Comment is free but facts are on expenses. 2018 LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, the Director proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director's view shall be based on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence that the Director is able to collect.* 2. Verbal evidence is still evidence. While verbal evidence will often have lesser weight than written evidence** (and/or "the dog that did not bark in the night-time" absence of written evidence), verbal evidence usually does not have zero weight. So a Director who automatically ignores verbal evidence has committed a Director's Error (see Law 82C). 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, or whether there are two non-offending sides, and the Director's view is that the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the Director shall then break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side. 4. If the Director is then satisfied that the facts have been ascertained, the Director rules as in Law 84. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to the Director's satisfaction, the Director shall make a ruling that will permit play to continue. * 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. ** Sometimes verbal evidence will have greater weight than written evidence. For example, one player presents 30 pages of the sixth edition of their system notes to "prove" that that player's explanation of "Snapdragon Double" was correct. But the player's partner verbally explains that the sixth edition was unread, and that the "Snapdragon Double" convention was not in the fifth edition. Based on that verbal evidence, the Director correctly rules that "Snapdragon Double" was misinformation, as an accurate explanation should have been, "We do not have a current agreement, because partner has not yet read the sixth edition of our system notes, but I am incorrectly assuming that partner has done so, hence our fifth edition agreement is not current either." -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111028/b735dd81/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Oct 28 07:08:42 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:08:42 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Bend it like Beckham [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A gafiated blmler made the somewhat obscure 1997 version of Law 73C easier to understand by using the simile "bend over backwards". Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Hierophant Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator 2018 LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION A. Appropriate Communication between Partners 1. Communication of authorized information between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays. 2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses and/or regulate optional pauses, for example on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick. B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners 1. 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. 2. The gravest possible infraction is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner 1. When a player has gained unauthorized information from partner, for example from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, that player must carefully (see 2. below) avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. 2. "Bend over backwards". For example, if a player has a choice amongst two Logical Alternatives (for definition see Law 16B), and only one of the two is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information, then: (a) That player shall not select the Logical Alternative which is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information even if that player would have "always" normally chosen that call and/or play; instead (b) That player shall select the non-suggested Logical Alternative even if that player would have "never" normally chosen that call and/or play. D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. "Bridge is a thinking game", so it is not always required for a player to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, a player should be particularly careful when variations may deceive an opponent (see 2 below). Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by opponents and at their own risk. 2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (for example, in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. E. Appropriate and Inappropriate Deception A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not inappropriately protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience). F. Infraction of this Law 73 When an infraction of another clause in this Law 73 results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to the innocent opponent's detriment, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of that 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/20111028/658699a5/attachment.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Oct 28 09:18:08 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:18:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals Message-ID: <468CF5A1A2D7499BAE81592C5A305E64@changeme1> Anyone know what the incident with B7 was last evening please ? ------------------------------------------------ A woman walked into a bar and asked the barman for a double entendre - so he gave her one From svenpran at online.no Fri Oct 28 10:57:23 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:57:23 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a601cc954f$9c4cb6d0$d4e62470$@online.no> Be aware that every bid in bridge is ?artificial? in the way that it has no ?natural? meaning. Originally (in the days of auction bridge) every call had the ?natural? meaning of an offer to undertake winning a specific number of tricks with a named suit as trump or without trump at all. This ?natural? meaning was not ?natural? in itself but rather an accepted code on how to understand the expression that made up the bid. Today?s systems use similar codes to understand the expressions making up bids (and indeed all calls), only the codes are now different, depending on the actual system. And we have adopted the term ?artificial? to mean a code different from the one defined by Culbertson in his system as finally described in his Gold Book (1936) with later modifications made by Goren. So the use of ?artificial? as a general characteristic in alert regulations may lead to very undesirable results. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sendt: 28. oktober 2011 01:44 Til: blml at rtflb.org Emne: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I request comments and suggestions on the attached hypothetical Default Alert Law before its finally filtered form is formally forwarded to Grattan Endicott. Kind regards, Richard Hills Recruitment Hierophant Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movies coordinator 2018 Appendix A, Default Alert Procedure This appendix is merely a default, which is and may be over-ridden by past or future alert procedures specified by the Regulating Authority. The following classes of calls should be alerted: 1. All artificial calls. 2. All natural (non-artificial) calls which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. See Law 40B. 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. 4. If screens are in use, players are especially encouraged to be generous to opponents in the exchange of information. If screens are not in use, then do NOT alert the following: 5. All doubles (but unusual doubles should be pre-alerted at the start of the round or match). 6. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. 7. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional calls on the first round of the auction. Whether or not screens are in use, all players must respect the spirit* of this alert procedure as well as the letter. * The spirit is to disclose, not as grudgingly little as legally possible, but rather as generously much as is legally permitted, and as succinct but comprehensible as practical. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111028/9c708f80/attachment-0001.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 28 11:53:58 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:53:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28724483.1626901319795638097.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> +=+ Not all blasphemies lead to great truths. The invitation was addressed to all NBOs worldwide - I forget the number but it is a long way over 125. It was addressed to all Tournament Directors worldwide (and conveyed individually to 450-500 of the more senior ones). Numerically BLML will not be the richest source of ideas. - Grattan - +=+ >---- Original Message---- >From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Date: 28/10/2011 1:14 >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Subj: Re: [BLML] Proli-fora- tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >Grattan Endicott -> > >[snip] >BLML constitutes only a minimal portion of the population from which the >committee has invited submissions. However, the filtering process that you >are recommending has the advantage that a proposal forwarded to me after >such filtering ought to be economically phrased and therefore impactive. >~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Brian Meadows -> > >[snip] >I was suggesting that a single forum might be capable of gathering >responses from ALL internet-using sources, hence the quantity of BLML >traffic isn't (presumably) the major constituent. >..... >Right, but once again, I think you're only considering BLML traffic. I'm >assuming from Grattan's comment (above) that the traffic in a forum set up >to (try to) aggregate all responses would be many times that carried by >BLML. >[snip] > >Richard Hills -> > >No, the _quantity_ of blml suggestions during the many years leading up to >the creation of the 2007 Lawbook were, I believe, far greater than the >aggregate of all other suggestions. Of course the _quality_ of blml >suggestions were much less than the _quality_ of private suggestions from >two Aussie National Directors. As I recall, Grattan compared reading blml >posts as comparable to panning for flecks of gold amongst zillions of kilos >of riverbed mud. But an auto-filter from active blmlers with expertise, for >example Peter Eidt and Sven Pran, would assist the "single forum" -- >Grattan Endicott -- to prepare great truths for the Drafting Committee to >consider from and after 2013. > >George Bernard Shaw, Annajanska (1919) -> > >All great truths begin as blasphemies. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 28 13:10:04 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:10:04 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EAA8D8C.7050700@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/10/2011 4:39, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Tom Stoppard, Night and Day (1978) -> > > Comment is free but facts are on expenses. > > 2018 LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or > regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, the Director > proceeds as follows: > > A. Director's Assessment > > 1. In determining the facts the Director's view shall be based on the > balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the > weight of the evidence that the Director is able to collect.* > > 2. Verbal evidence is still evidence. While verbal evidence will often > have lesser weight than written evidence** (and/or "the dog that did > not bark in the night-time" absence of written evidence), verbal > evidence usually does not have zero weight. So a Director who > automatically ignores verbal evidence has committed a Director's Error > (see Law 82C). > > 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, > or whether there are two non-offending sides, and the Director's view > is that the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the Director > shall then break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side. > AG : isn't this dangerous ? Doesn't it mean that it would suffice for a pair to pretend that their opponents e.g. used the information from the tempo to get redress for an imaginary infraction ? Boith pairs having only verbal evidence to give. Yes, there could be evidence from the hand that one could have taken some time ; but this is not evidence, not even the least bit, that one did. Take those two hands from recent matches, both facing a 1H opening : Qxx AJTxx Axxx ATxx KJTxx K Q xxx (A) (B) Would you believe that I took about 20 seconds to choose an answer with (A), but answered 3NT in a split second with (B) ? If opponents pretended that I took a long time wth (B), knowing that I did with (A), and if the TD acted as described in (3), would it have been fair ? > > 4. If the Director is then satisfied that the facts have been > ascertained, the Director rules as in Law 84. > > B. Facts Not Determined > > If the Director is unable to determine the facts to the Director's > satisfaction, the Director shall make a ruling that will permit play > to continue. > > * 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. > > ** Sometimes verbal evidence will have greater weight than written > evidence. For example, one player presents 30 pages of the sixth > edition of their system notes to "prove" that that player's > explanation of "Snapdragon Double" was correct. But the player's > partner verbally explains that the sixth edition was unread, and that > the "Snapdragon Double" convention was not in the fifth edition. Based > on that verbal evidence, the Director correctly rules that "Snapdragon > Double" was misinformation, as an accurate explanation should have > been, "We do not have a current agreement, because partner has not yet > read the sixth edition of our system notes, but I am incorrectly > assuming that partner has done so, hence our fifth edition agreement > is not current either." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111028/95474dfb/attachment.html From petereidt at t-online.de Fri Oct 28 13:36:00 2011 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:36:00 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?Default_Alert_Law_filtering_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL?= =?utf-8?q?=5D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> The proposal for Appendix A is good - in principle. Nevertheless I have stomachache with 2 points: 1. re Nr. 5 and pre-Alerts of unusual doubles. IMHO this is impractical in real life. When I sit down as a player - especially in pairs events - I'd like to know roughly about opponents system (style, NT range, 2 level openings, etc), but not whether they play Snapdragon double or Watson double or up to what level they play Support double ... the better and experienced a pair the more unusual doubles they might play (and you also have to play 2 boards in those 16 minutes). 2. Don't use the word "conventional" in Nr. 7 when using "artificial" in Nr. 1 & 2 - and conventional not being in the section "Definitions". Von: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > I request comments and suggestions on the attached hypothetical > Default Alert Law before its finally filtered form is formally > forwarded to Grattan Endicott. > > Kind regards, > > Richard Hills > Recruitment Hierophant > Aqua 5, w/s W575, ph 6223 8453 > DIAC Social Club movies coordinator > > 2018 Appendix A, Default Alert Procedure > > This appendix is merely a default, which is and may be over-ridden by > past or future alert procedures specified by the Regulating Authority. > > The following classes of calls should be alerted: > > 1. All artificial calls. > > 2. All natural (non-artificial) calls which have special meanings or > which are based on or lead to special understandings between the > partners. See Law 40B. > > 3. Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or > overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to > opening bids of one of a suit. > > 4. If screens are in use, players are especially encouraged to be > generous to opponents in the exchange of information. > > If screens are not in use, then do NOT alert the following: > > 5. All doubles (but unusual doubles should be pre-alerted at the > start of the round or match). > > 6. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, > or suggests a no-trump contract. > > 7. Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of > conventional calls on the first round of the auction. > > Whether or not screens are in use, all players must respect the > spirit* of this alert procedure as well as the letter. > > * The spirit is to disclose, not as grudgingly little as legally > possible, but rather as generously much as is legally permitted, and > as succinct but comprehensible as practical. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental > privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. > See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 28 15:50:47 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:50:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28724483.1626901319795638097.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <28724483.1626901319795638097.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <49FF8A8550C94A36975DD479FA08BDCC@G3> [Grattan Endicott] The invitation was addressed to all NBOs worldwide - I forget the number but it is a long way over 125. It was addressed to all Tournament Directors worldwide (and conveyed individually to 450-500 of the more senior ones). Numerically BLML will not be the richest source of ideas. {Nigel] BLML would become the richest source of ideas If the WBFLC requested *all sources* to channel suggestions, though it. But many ordinary players and some directors might be reluctant to sign up because BLML has irrelevant material,and lacks the refinement and selectivity that members can specify in other forum structures. Better would be to use modern forum software on the ^WBF-siite* and ask NBOs to publicise it on their sites. Paradoxically, I think this may reduce the *volume* of submissions (because their would be less duplication -and more enhancement of other peoples' ideas). But it it is likely to improve the *quality* (because it encourages ordinary players to express their views). From g3 at nige1.com Fri Oct 28 16:38:12 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:38:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law In-Reply-To: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> (In answer to Richard) Suggested law to *replace* alert law. 1. Before each board, opponents may request or forbid announcements (using "explain/don't explain" card from bidding box -- one per pair) 2. During the auction, If opponents forbid it and you announce (or alert) then that is treated as deliberate UI.. 3. Otherwise you must announce the meaning of each call by partner, as soon as partner makes it. Asking about a call is deliberate UI 4. A card would be provided for common meanings (e.g. natural, take-out, negative, penalty, competitive, support, lead-directing, splinter, fit-jump, keycard, exclusion, F1, FG, tramsfer, relay, asking and so on) You put a coin on the appropriate box in a matrix. But you must disclose refinements if any. 5. If you win the auction, you must volunteer what it has shown about partner's hand (ignoring the contents of your own hand). If opponents win the auction you must not volunteer such information but must divulge it if asked. Either side may ask follow-up questions about inferences drawn from the auction as a whole. Among the advantages of this disclosure protocol: a. Simple: enough for most directors to understand it and for most players to comply with it. b. Less memory burden: No need to remember what to alert and what to announce. c. Saves time: taken to alert and ask. d. Eliminates UI: from selective alerts and questions. e. Level playing field: No need for different local regulations in each jurisdiction. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Oct 28 17:47:29 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:47:29 +0200 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law In-Reply-To: <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> References: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> Message-ID: <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> Le 28/10/2011 16:38, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > (In answer to Richard) Suggested law to *replace* alert law. > > 1. Before each board, opponents may request or forbid announcements (using > "explain/don't explain" card from bidding box -- one per pair) > > 2. During the auction, If opponents forbid it and you announce (or alert) > then that is treated as deliberate UI.. > > 3. Otherwise you must announce the meaning of each call by partner, as soon > as partner makes it. Asking about a call is deliberate UI AG : Some bids don't need any explanation. What do you do in those cases ? Also, it should be legal to take a bit time to work out the meaning. > > 4. A card would be provided for common meanings (e.g. natural, take-out, > negative, penalty, competitive, support, lead-directing, splinter, fit-jump, > keycard, exclusion, F1, FG, tramsfer, relay, asking and so on) You put a > coin on the appropriate box in a matrix. But you must disclose refinements > if any. AG : I experimented with this (behind screens) and it works well. > > 5. If you win the auction, you must volunteer what it has shown about > partner's hand (ignoring the contents of your own hand). If opponents win > the auction you must not volunteer such information but must divulge it if > asked. Either side may ask follow-up questions about inferences drawn from > the auction as a whole. > > Among the advantages of this disclosure protocol: > a. Simple: enough for most directors to understand it and for most players > to comply with it. > b. Less memory burden: No need to remember what to alert and what to > announce. > c. Saves time: taken to alert and ask. AG : but loses time when you explain and they don't care, which is more common. > d. Eliminates UI: from selective alerts and questions. 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. From richard.willey at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 18:07:15 2011 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:07:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law In-Reply-To: <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> References: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > 4. A card would be provided for common meanings (e.g. natural, take-out, > > negative, penalty, competitive, support, lead-directing, splinter, > fit-jump, > > keycard, exclusion, F1, FG, tramsfer, relay, asking and so on) You put a > > coin on the appropriate box in a matrix. But you must disclose > refinements > > if any. > I have mixed feelings about this: 1. In this best of all worlds, such a system might, indeed, be better than what is used today 2. In practice, I'm not sure whether there is sufficient agreement about the definition of these terms for such a system to be of any value. Consider all the horrendous debates about the semantic distinctions regarding what does / does not "constitute" a natural bid. Alternatively - if you have a strong stomach - take a look at the ACBL's attempt to define the word "relay". 3. Even if such a system might be desirable, its unclear whether it should be enshrined in the laws. (I'd argue that it would be strongly desirable for any such system to be tested in the real world for a significant period of time before having the Laws mandate its use). As a practical, though potentially tasteless analogy - with hindsight some might argue that it would have been a good idea to require the Greeks to successfully peg their currency to the Euro for a couple decades before admitting them to the Euro Zone... (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) -- 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/20111028/f112009f/attachment.html From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 29 02:10:28 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:10:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law In-Reply-To: <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> References: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> <4EAACE91.1040304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: [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. From g3 at nige1.com Sat Oct 29 02:20:35 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:20:35 +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: <860EA210A93944D7B5C33F35F8185100@G3> [Richard Willey] I have mixed feelings about this: 1. In this best of all worlds, such a system might, indeed, be better than what is used today 2. In practice, I'm not sure whether there is sufficient agreement about the definition of these terms for such a system to be of any value. Consider all the horrendous debates about the semantic distinctions regarding what does / does not "constitute" a natural bid. Alternatively - if you have a strong stomach - take a look at the ACBL's attempt to define the word "relay". 3. Even if such a system might be desirable, its unclear whether it should be enshrined in the laws. (I'd argue that it would be strongly desirable for any such system to be tested in the real world for a significant period of time before having the Laws mandate its use). As a practical, though potentially tasteless analogy - with hindsight some might argue that it would have been a good idea to require the Greeks to successfully peg their currency to the Euro for a couple decades before admitting them to the Euro Zone... (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) {Nigel] A polite and moderately positive response. I hope you are feeling OK Richard. Anyway, thank you. In the short term, with the current tower of Babel, it should be possible to find an RA willing to test out any new suggestion before imposing it globally. But in the long term, Bridge would be fairer for players (but less interesting for directors) if ?regulations? were part of the law-book and local regulations were scrapped. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111029/150741f2/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Oct 29 17:07:57 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:07:57 -0400 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b Message-ID: Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). The auction was 1D 2D 1S One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it that was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that this pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S replacement bid would not bar partner But.... If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is easy to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the partnership agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work for this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S would mean. There is a real problem with making it the partnership agreement. Suppose the auction is 1S P 4NT 5D 5D The 5D bidder did not see the 5 heart bid. 5D was intended to show, say, one control, and it does in their system. He wants to now replace his bid with 5H, which he believes shows one ace in their system. It would be really really convenient if I could stop there. Next choice, I somehow check their card and find out that's what 5H means. Really really really inconvient if 5H shows two controls. I don't think there is any possible reasonable ruling at this point. The table situation was even harder, but I will leave it at that for now. From diggadog at iinet.net.au Sun Oct 30 03:53:21 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:53:21 +0800 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EACBC21.2070303@iinet.net.au> What did each of the insufficient bidders tell you when you removed them from the table and asked them what they intended when they made their call? When you asked, away from the table, did they have a legal call which would show (at least) the same information? In the second case DOPI (or similar) perhaps? cheers bill On 29/10/2011 11:07 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). > > The auction was > > 1D 2D 1S > > One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it that > was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that this > pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S > replacement bid would not bar partner But.... > > If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is easy > to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the partnership > agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work for > this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S > would mean. > > There is a real problem with making it the partnership agreement. Suppose > the auction is > > 1S P 4NT 5D > 5D > > The 5D bidder did not see the 5 heart bid. 5D was intended to show, say, > one control, and it does in their system. He wants to now replace his bid > with 5H, which he believes shows one ace in their system. It would be > really really convenient if I could stop there. Next choice, I somehow > check their card and find out that's what 5H means. Really really really > inconvient if 5H shows two controls. I don't think there is any possible > reasonable ruling at this point. > > > The table situation was even harder, but I will leave it at that for now. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml at arcor.de Sun Oct 30 10:04:17 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:04:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <439302233.415396.1319965457608.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). > > The auction was > > 1D 2D 1S > > One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it that > > was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that this > pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S > replacement bid would not bar partner But.... > If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is easy > to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the partnership > agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work for > this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S > would mean. It helps if at the club you enforce that pairs have reasonably completed CCs, especially those play together several times per month. The player can bid 2S without further rectification if 2S shows spades in their system in this auction. His partner then must ignore the UI from the insufficient bid, and behave as if 2S was bid directly. That is, if 2S is GF in their system now, it still is GF. That is what you have to explain to them. Thomas From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Sun Oct 30 12:22:47 2011 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:22:47 -0000 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: <439302233.415396.1319965457608.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> References: <439302233.415396.1319965457608.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <07BFAAC24B084DB2BF67F9315AF0058F@MikePC> -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dehn Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:04 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b Robert Frick wrote: > Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). > > The auction was > > 1D 2D 1S > > One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it that > > was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that this > pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S > replacement bid would not bar partner But.... > If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is easy > to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the partnership > agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work for > this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S > would mean. It helps if at the club you enforce that pairs have reasonably completed CCs, especially those play together several times per month. The player can bid 2S without further rectification if 2S shows spades in their system in this auction. His partner then must ignore the UI from the insufficient bid, and behave as if 2S was bid directly. That is, if 2S is GF in their system now, it still is GF. That is what you have to explain to them. ??? What does Law 27 say about Law 16? Mike Thomas _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 30 17:32:11 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:32:11 -0400 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: <07BFAAC24B084DB2BF67F9315AF0058F@MikePC> References: <439302233.415396.1319965457608.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <07BFAAC24B084DB2BF67F9315AF0058F@MikePC> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:22:47 -0400, Mike Amos wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Dehn > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:04 AM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b > > Robert Frick wrote: >> Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). >> >> The auction was >> >> 1D 2D 1S >> >> One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it >> that >> >> was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that this >> pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S >> replacement bid would not bar partner But.... >> If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is >> easy >> to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the partnership >> agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work >> for >> this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S >> would mean. > > It helps if at the club you enforce that pairs have reasonably > completed CCs, especially those play together several times per month. > > The player can bid 2S without further rectification if > 2S shows spades in their system in this auction. His > partner then must ignore the UI from the insufficient bid, > and behave as if 2S was bid directly. That is, if 2S is GF in their > system now, it still is GF. > > That is what you have to explain to them. > > ??? What does Law 27 say about Law 16? > > Mike > I think here that Thomas is right -- the replaces insufficient bid has to be treated as a withdrawn bid and becomes AI to the opponents and UI to the player's partner. As near as I can see, there is no solution to this problem. I am not positive what Mike is trying to imply. If he is trying to imply that there are no provisions in the laws for treating the withdrawn IB as a withdrawn bid, when L27B1(b) is used, that was my opinion too. The fact remains -- I can see no other solution expect to treat it as withdrawn and apply Law 16D. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 30 17:38:26 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:38:26 -0400 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: <4EACBC21.2070303@iinet.net.au> References: <4EACBC21.2070303@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:53:21 -0400, bill kemp wrote: > What did each of the insufficient bidders tell you when you removed them > from the table and asked them what they intended when they made their > call? There is no problem with what they meant by the first call -- 1S was intended to show spades, because they did not see the 2D bid. The problem is the meaning of the 2S replacement. > > When you asked, away from the table, did they have a legal call which > would show (at least) the same information? Aye, there's the rub. L27B1(b) only requires that the replacement bid have the same meaning. Whatever that means. When you use the word "show", that implies communication and that perhaps both players have to attach the same meaning to the bid. I think that is important, but it's not exactly in the law. how many directors ask both players what the replacement bid would mean to them? But I shouldn't be putting words in your mouth -- what did you mean? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 30 17:43:20 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:43:20 -0400 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:07:57 -0400, Robert Frick wrote: > Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). > > The auction was > > 1D 2D 1S > > One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it > that > was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that this > pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S > replacement bid would not bar partner But.... > > If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is > easy > to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the partnership > agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work > for > this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S > would mean. > > There is a real problem with making it the partnership agreement. Suppose > the auction is > > 1S P 4NT 5D > 5D > > The 5D bidder did not see the 5 heart bid. 5D was intended to show, say, > one control, and it does in their system. He wants to now replace his bid > with 5H, which he believes shows one ace in their system. It would be > really really convenient if I could stop there. Next choice, I somehow > check their card and find out that's what 5H means. Really really really > inconvient if 5H shows two controls. I don't think there is any possible > reasonable ruling at this point. > > > The table situation was even harder, but I will leave it at that for now. I want to upgrade the seriousness of this problem. There is a problem whenever the director judges that a replacement bid is nonbarring and the two players do not attach the same meaning to that replacement bid. (And if that wasn't bad enough, 2S would show spades if -- as this player did -- 2D is interpreted as natural. Her partner, playing exactly the same system, might give a different meaning to 2S because she thought 2D was Michaels.) If they lady had seen the 2D bid, then bid 2S, that might have led to a partnership misunderstanding. It seems inappropriate to me for the direct to clear up the partnership misunderstand and make sure it does not occur. So "You can't bid 2S because that would be a cue bid" doesn't seem right. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Oct 30 18:03:54 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:03:54 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals Message-ID: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1> P.S. Angelini and adjusted score... > Anyone know what the incident with B7 was last evening please ? > > ------------------------------------------------ > > A woman walked into a bar and asked the barman for a double entendre - so > he gave her one > From blml at arcor.de Sun Oct 30 18:15:38 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:15:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: <07BFAAC24B084DB2BF67F9315AF0058F@MikePC> References: <07BFAAC24B084DB2BF67F9315AF0058F@MikePC> <439302233.415396.1319965457608.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: <1011615740.416468.1319994938333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Mike Amos wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Dehn > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:04 AM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b > > Robert Frick wrote: > > Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). > > > > The auction was > > > > 1D 2D 1S > > > > One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it > that > > > > was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that this > > pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S > > replacement bid would not bar partner But.... > > If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is > easy > > to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the partnership > > agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work > for > > this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S > > would mean. > > It helps if at the club you enforce that pairs have reasonably > completed CCs, especially those play together several times per month. > > The player can bid 2S without further rectification if > 2S shows spades in their system in this auction. His > partner then must ignore the UI from the insufficient bid, > and behave as if 2S was bid directly. That is, if 2S is GF in their > system now, it still is GF. > > That is what you have to explain to them. > > ??? What does Law 27 say about Law 16? It says that in case the conditions of L27B(1) are met, L16D does not apply, but L27D will apply. He does not have to bend over backwards to avoid using the UI, but flagrant use of the UI is not allowed per L27D. North East South West 1D 2D 1S/2S(1) pass (1) IB, replaced with a GF 2S All pass. If 2S now is a poor board, N/S get to keep that, whereas if it is a good score for N/S, the TD will likely take it away per L27D, as this auction would not have happened without the IB. Yes, I did use sloppy wording in my previous posting. Thomas From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 30 18:55:48 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:55:48 -0400 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b In-Reply-To: <1011615740.416468.1319994938333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> References: <07BFAAC24B084DB2BF67F9315AF0058F@MikePC> <439302233.415396.1319965457608.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail07.arcor-online.net> <1011615740.416468.1319994938333.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:15:38 -0400, Thomas Dehn wrote: > Mike Amos wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Dehn >> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:04 AM >> To: blml at rtflb.org >> Subject: Re: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >> > Argh, what is the meaning of the second "meaning" in L27B1(b). >> > >> > The auction was >> > >> > 1D 2D 1S >> > >> > One spade was natural. I think she did not see the 2D bid (or take it >> that >> > >> > was for the sake of example. I thought it reasonably probable that >> this >> > pair would play a 2S bid on this auction as natural, hence that a 2S >> > replacement bid would not bar partner But.... >> > If the meaning of 2S is whatever this player thinks it is, then it is >> easy >> > to determine. I can, roughly, just ask her. But if it is the >> partnership >> > agreement, then I have to look at the card. Which certainly won't work >> for >> > this example, so I have to take the partner aside and ask her what 2S >> > would mean. >> >> It helps if at the club you enforce that pairs have reasonably >> completed CCs, especially those play together several times per month. >> >> The player can bid 2S without further rectification if >> 2S shows spades in their system in this auction. His >> partner then must ignore the UI from the insufficient bid, >> and behave as if 2S was bid directly. That is, if 2S is GF in their >> system now, it still is GF. >> >> That is what you have to explain to them. >> >> ??? What does Law 27 say about Law 16? > > It says that in case the conditions of L27B(1) are met, L16D does not > apply, > but L27D will apply. He does not have to bend over backwards to avoid > using the UI, but flagrant use of the UI is not allowed per L27D. > > North East South West > 1D 2D 1S/2S(1) pass (1) IB, replaced with a GF 2S > All pass. > > If 2S now is a poor board, N/S get to keep that, whereas > if it is a good score for N/S, the TD will likely take it > away per L27D, as this auction would not have happened > without the IB. > > Yes, I did use sloppy wording in my previous posting. Let's say that without the insufficient bid, South bids 1S and they would have gotten to the good contract of 3NT. Had South noticed the 2D bid, she would have bid 2S and there would have been a bidding misunderstanding and they get to the wrong contract. But Director allows a nonbarring 2S replacement, and North would have misundertood that bid but figures it out from the ruling, so they get to 3NT. Blatant use of information from the withdrawn bid, but L27D does not apply, right? From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 19:32:19 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:32:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals In-Reply-To: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1> References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1> Message-ID: <4EAD9833.603@gmail.com> On 30/10/2011 18:03, Larry wrote: > P.S. Angelini and adjusted score... > > >> Anyone know what the incident with B7 was last evening please ? Round 15? (at 13:45 in the afternoon). Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 30 19:57:37 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:57:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brian is right, this problem desperately needs a forum. 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. You can change how people think, but there is no structure and zero permanence. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Oct 30 20:11:50 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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." > > > Tom Stoppard, Night and Day (1978) -> > > Comment is free but facts are on expenses. > > 2018 LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation > in > which the facts are not agreed upon, the Director proceeds as follows: > > A. Director's Assessment > > 1. In determining the facts the Director's view shall be based on the > balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight > of > the evidence that the Director is able to collect.* > > 2. Verbal evidence is still evidence. While verbal evidence will often > have > lesser weight than written evidence** (and/or "the dog that did not bark > in > the night-time" absence of written evidence), verbal evidence usually > does > not have zero weight. So a Director who automatically ignores verbal > evidence has committed a Director's Error (see Law 82C). > > 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, or > whether there are two non-offending sides, and the Director's view is > that > the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the Director shall then > break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side. > > 4. If the Director is then satisfied that the facts have been > ascertained, > the Director rules as in Law 84. > > B. Facts Not Determined > > If the Director is unable to determine the facts to the Director's > satisfaction, the Director shall make a ruling that will permit play to > continue. > > * 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. > > ** Sometimes verbal evidence will have greater weight than written > evidence. For example, one player presents 30 pages of the sixth edition > of > their system notes to "prove" that that player's explanation of > "Snapdragon > Double" was correct. But the player's partner verbally explains that the > sixth edition was unread, and that the "Snapdragon Double" convention was > not in the fifth edition. Based on that verbal evidence, the Director > correctly rules that "Snapdragon Double" was misinformation, as an > accurate > explanation should have been, "We do not have a current agreement, > because > partner has not yet read the sixth edition of our system notes, but I am > incorrectly assuming that partner has done so, hence our fifth edition > agreement is not current either." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Oct 30 20:32:16 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:32:16 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1> <4EAD9833.603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> That sounds about right. I think somebody passed out a silly contract by mistake (3N other room). TD involved, Arguement in corridor, but I could not understand what happened. L > On 30/10/2011 18:03, Larry wrote: >> P.S. Angelini and adjusted score... >> >> >>> Anyone know what the incident with B7 was last evening please ? > > Round 15? (at 13:45 in the afternoon). > > 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) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 30 21:49:49 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:49:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2018 Law 27 ? INSUFFICIENT BID A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. 1. Any insufficient bid in rotation may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if LHO calls. 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation, then either Law 29A applies or Law 31 applies. B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see Law 27A1 above) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see clause 3 below). Then 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bidder's intended meaning* for the insufficient bid and the pre-existing mutual partnership meaning* for the legal substituted call are incontrovertibly not artificial (i.e. natural, see Definitions), then the auction and play proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply, but see Law 27D below. (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same pre-existing mutual partnership meaning* as, or a more precise pre-existing mutual partnership meaning* than, the insufficient bidder's intended meaning for the insufficient bid (such meaning* of the replacement call being fully contained within the possible meanings* of the insufficient bid) the auction and play proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply, but see Law 27D below. 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender's partner must pass whenever it is the partner's turn to call. Law 26 lead restrictions have been abolished in this latest edition of the Lawbook, but Law 16D applies. Law 23 may also apply. 3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for the insufficient bid the attempted replacement call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows and the offender's partner must then pass whenever it is the partner's turn to call. Law 26 lead restrictions have been abolished in this latest edition of the Lawbook, but Law 16D applies. Law 23 may also apply. 4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in clause 3 above if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as Law 27A above allows. C. Premature Replacement If the offender replaces the insufficient bid before the Director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as Law 27A above allows, the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution. D. Non-offending Side Damaged. 1. If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12). In this adjustment the Director should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred. 2. Law 73C does not apply to the insufficient bid, but Law 73C may apply to any remark by the insufficient bidder. E. Indicative Examples of Law 27 Rulings [West dealer and bidding] 1C - 1S - 1H (showing 4 or more hearts and 6+ hcp; not accepted). The Director accepts East's replacement of 1H by a negative Double which either has the same meaning or, in other partnership agreements, shows hearts and diamonds and then it is contained in the meaning of the 1H-bid, just showing hearts. The Director also accepts 2H under B1(a). A take-out Double normally does not show specified suits. When West opens 1S and North follows with 1H (due to North falsely believing that North was dealer), and East does not accept 1H, the replacement call of a take-out Double does not allow South to take part in the normal auction, while 2H instead allows for a normal continuation. However if the System Card shows that such a take-out Double promises 4 hearts, it is acceptable if a 1H opening bid - which North thought North was making - can be made with a 4-card suit, but not if it promises a 5-card suit. * The "meaning" of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. For each and every sufficient call (including the replacement call for an insufficient bid) its "meaning" is the pre-existing mutual partnership understanding, not the unilateral intent of one partner. An insufficient bid is an exception, with its "meaning" being defined by the intent of the insufficient bidder. Thus, to avoid creating unnecessary unauthorized information, the Director may wish to question the insufficient bidder away from the table. The Director may initially ignore very trivial and/or very infrequent variances in the "meaning" of a replacement call, striving to gain a bridge result at the table, provided that the Director stands ready to later protect the non-offending side, if required, with a Law 27D ruling. 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/20111030/fcd0cd9d/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 30 21:56:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:56:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] A new disclosure law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <852671E2108049A7B11BE0D95C037304@G3> Message-ID: 2018 LAW 22 ? Procedure after the Bidding has Ended A. End of Auction The auction ends when: 1. all four players pass (but see Law 25). The hands are returned to the board without play. There shall not be a redeal. 2. one or more players having bid, there are three consecutive passes in rotation subsequent to the last bid. The last bid becomes the contract (but see Law 19D). B. Clarification Period 1. The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out of turn then see Law 54). The time between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is the Clarification Period. 2. If no player bids (see A1) the Clarification Period and the auction period end when all four hands have been returned to the board. 3. (a) If one player of the presumed defending side believes that partner has earlier misinformed* the presumed declaring side, then that player must NOT now summon the Director during the Clarification Period, instead waiting until the end of play as required by Law 20F5(b)(i). At the end of play the Director may judge to apply Law 40B4. (b) If one player of the presumed declaring side believes that partner has earlier misinformed* the presumed defending side, then that player must now summon the Director during the Clarification Period as required by Law 20F5 (b)(ii). The Director may judge to apply Law 21B1(a) to allow the presumed defender last to pass the option to select another call; this may cause the presumed defending side to eventually become the actual declaring side. Whether or not the Director judges to apply Law 21B1(a), at the end of play the Director also may judge to apply Law 40B4. 4. (a) It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that a player must not have any secret understandings with partner, either in bidding or in card play. Partnership understandings must be freely available and concisely disclosed in good faith to opponents. (b) During the Clarification Period the presumed declaring side shall draw attention to any unusual features of the presumed declaring side's auction, particularly any unusual non-alerted and/or non-announced calls. Upon enquiry, the presumed declaring side must disclose fully, not only the specific meanings of all calls, but also any inferences that the declaring side has drawn from the auction based upon partnership experience (as distinct from general bridge knowledge). These explanations may occasionally need to include negative inferences, such as hand types partner probably does not have for the calls selected. (c) During the Clarification Period the presumed defending side must not, at this time, draw attention to their own calls, nor voluntarily offer explanations (they must of course concisely disclose in good faith upon enquiry). * by an incorrect explanation, by an incorrect alert or announcement, or by an incorrect failure to alert or announce. 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/20111030/51880c70/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Oct 30 22:15:10 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:15:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0815840612E5497ABDB288AC3830645E@erdos> Richard Hills writes: >The Director may initially ignore very trivial and/or very infrequent variances >in the "meaning" of a replacement call, striving to gain a bridge result at the >table, provided that the Director stands ready to later protect the >non-offending >side, if required, with a Law 27D ruling. This is a good idea, because it allows a bridge result to be obtained without the need to determine whether the containment of one meaning is allowed under another. >E. Indicative Examples of Law 27 Rulings >[West dealer and bidding] >1C - 1S - 1H (showing 4 or more hearts and 6+ hcp; not accepted). The Director >accepts East's replacement of 1H by a negative Double which either has the same >meaning or, in other partnership agreements, shows hearts and diamonds and then >it is contained in the meaning of the 1H-bid, just showing hearts. The Director >also >accepts 2H under B1(a). This is acceptable under the above footnote because the meaning of the negative double is contained in the meaning of 1H; any hand which makes a negative double would qualify for a 1H bid. But the footnote is needed; many players will bid 1D in response to 1C with a hand like xxx Kxxx AJxxx x, but will make a negative double after the overcall. >A take-out Double normally does not show specified suits. When West opens 1S >and North follows with 1H (due to North falsely believing that North was >dealer), >and East does not accept 1H, the replacement call of a take-out Double does not >allow South to take part in the normal auction, while 2H instead allows for a >normal >continuation. However if the System Card shows that such a take-out Double >promises 4 hearts, it is acceptable if a 1H opening bid - which North thought >North was making - can be made with a 4-card suit, but not if it promises a >5-card suit. However, I would not accept this as a contained meaning. Even if system allows N-S to open 1H with four hearts, the take-out double is often made with Jxxx of hearts, while players who open four-card majors will not open such a weak suit. Similarly, if the opening out of turn were 1C, promising only three clubs, I would not allow the correction to a takeout double even though the takeout double does promise three clubs, because the 1C opening carries a strong negative inference (clubs longer than diamonds, denies five hearts); more than half of all hands which make a takeout double of 1S do not open 1C. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 30 22:28:30 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:28:30 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Default Alert Law filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1RJkjA-0GppeS0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: Peter Eidt -> The proposal for Appendix A is good - in principle. Nevertheless I have stomach-ache with 2 points: 1. re Nr. 5 and pre-Alerts of unusual doubles. IMHO this is impractical in real life. When I sit down as a player - especially in pairs events - I'd like to know roughly about opponents system (style, NT range, 2 level openings, etc), but not whether they play Snapdragon double or Watson double or up to what level they play Support double ... the better and experienced a pair the more unusual doubles they might play (and you also have to play 2 boards in those 16 minutes). Richard Hills -> Yes and No. Good filtering. On your suggestion I will modify clause 5 to re ad: 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_). Belgium saves time by also prohibiting pre-Alerts of unusual doubles. This permits so-called experts from Liege to baffle bunnies by playing unsound but unexpected doubles (when the bunny naturally assumes that the double has its normal meaning). 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. Peter Eidt -> 2. Don't use the word "conventional" in Nr. 7 when using "artificial" in Nr. 1 & 2 - and conventional not being in the section "Definitions". Richard Hills -> Yes and Yes. Good filtering. My mistake for copying and pasting the WBF Alert regulation and then only partially modifying it. 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/20111030/f19993e2/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Oct 30 22:54:04 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:54:04 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick -> [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. You can change how people think, but there is no structure and zero permanence. John Keats (1795 - 1821), epitaph for himself -> Here lies one whose name was writ in water. Richard Hills -> This epitaph is ironical; despite Keats' early death his classic poems are still read and enjoyed two centuries after he writ in water. And some non-structured blml posts created permanent changes to Law 11 and Law 65 when the 1997 Lawbook was updated to the 2007 Lawbook. Elsewhere I note Robert's writ in water idea that I should include an executive summary of the reasons for my proposed changes to a Law. Good filtering. I will do that with my future posts on hypothetical 2018 Laws. 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/20111030/c877ffe9/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 31 00:18:49 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:18:49 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <28724483.1626901319795638097.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: A.D. Hope (1907 - 2000), third verse of "Easter Hymn" -> The City of God is built like other cities: Judas negotiates the loans you float; You will meet Caiphas upon committees; You will be glad of Pilate's casting vote. Grattan Endicott -> +=+ Not all blasphemies lead to great truths. [snip] Richard Hills -> Indeed. This blml City of God wasted way too much time discussing proli-fora-tion of posts about the De Wael School blasphemy, so to nail it to its cross I have drafted a filterable 2018 Law 20. As always, responses welcome. Executive Summary I have added a new cross-reference to Law 20B. My two key substantive changes in Law 20 are the insertion of the word "honest" (and its corresponding footnote), and a bracketed example in Law 20F1(a) which explains a WBF LC interpretation. Also included are several minor substantive changes, some of which (as the White Knight said to Alice) are my own invention. 2018 LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS A. Call Not Clearly Recognised A player may require clarification forthwith if that player is in doubt what call has been made. B. 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, unless that player is required by law to pass (but for repeated requests for a review by a single player see Law 74B1). Alerts should be included when responding to the request. A player may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and may not halt the review before it is completed. C. Review after Final Pass 1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask about which defender is due to select the opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41). 2. Declarer** or either defender may, at that player's first turn to select a card, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B that player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review. D. Who May Review the Auction A request to have calls restated* shall be responded to only by an opponent (unless the Director at the table rules otherwise). E. Correction of Error in Review All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage). 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. (b) Except on the instruction of the Director (who may, in accordance with guidance from her Regulating Authority, direct a player to temporarily leave the table) replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. (c) The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until the partner's turn to call or play. (d) Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations. 2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at that defender's turn to play may request honest*** explanations of the opposing auction. At declarer's turn to play from her hand or from dummy declarer may request honest*** explanations of a defender's call or card play understandings. Honest*** explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained. 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply. 4. If a player subsequently realises that that player's own explanation was erroneous or incomplete that player must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may that player indicate by any mannerism (as in a shrug, glare, frown etc.) that a mistake has been made. "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) Nevertheless, that player must still give honest*** explanations of partner's subsequent calls whether or not those honest*** explanations indirectly indicate to partner that partner has erred. Such an indirect indication is unauthorized information, so Law 73C and/or Law 75A may apply to partner. (c) That player must call the Director and inform the opponents that, in that player's opinion, partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at the first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction (but before the opening lead is faced, and preferably before the opening lead is selected). 6. If the Director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to that player by an opponent see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47E. G. Incorrect Procedure 1. (a) Asking a question solely for partner's benefit is an infraction. The Director applies Law 90 or Law 91. (b) Asking a question solely for the purpose of making either side create unauthorized information is an infraction. The Director applies Law 90 or Law 91. 2. Except as the Regulating Authority allows a player may not consult that player's own System Card and notes during the auction and play periods, but see Law 40B2(b). * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear to an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an opening lead out of turn. *** Unintentional errors in explanation are honest. Dishonest intentional misexplanations could well receive Law 72B1 and Law 91 Disciplinary Penalties. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111030/49e6482b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 31 00:45:43 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:45:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:18:49 -0400, wrote: > > A.D. Hope (1907 - 2000), third verse of "Easter Hymn" -> > > The City of God is built like other cities: > Judas negotiates the loans you float; > You will meet Caiphas upon committees; > You will be glad of Pilate's casting vote. > > Grattan Endicott -> > > +=+ Not all blasphemies lead to great truths. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > Indeed. This blml City of God wasted way too much time discussing > proli-fora-tion of posts about the De Wael School blasphemy, so to nail > it > to its cross I have drafted a filterable 2018 Law 20. As always, > responses > welcome. > > Executive Summary > > I have added a new cross-reference to Law 20B. > > My two key substantive changes in Law 20 are the insertion of the word > "honest" (and its corresponding footnote), and a bracketed example in Law > 20F1(a) which explains a WBF LC interpretation. > > Also included are several minor substantive changes, some of which (as > the > White Knight said to Alice) are my own invention. > > 2018 LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS > > A. Call Not Clearly Recognised > > A player may require clarification forthwith if that player is in doubt > what call has been made. > > B. 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, 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. unless that player is > required by law to pass (but for repeated requests for a review by a > single > player see Law 74B1). Alerts should be included when responding to the > request. A player may not ask for a partial review of previous calls and > may not halt the review before it is completed. > > C. Review after Final Pass > > 1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask about which > defender is due to select the opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41). > > 2. Declarer** or either defender may, at that player's first turn to > select > a card, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and > 41C). > As in B that player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt > the > review. > > D. Who May Review the Auction > > A request to have calls restated* shall be responded to only by an > opponent > (unless the Director at the table rules otherwise). > > E. Correction of Error in Review > > All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are > responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 > when an uncorrected review causes damage). > > 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. > > (b) Except on the instruction of the Director (who may, in accordance > with > guidance from her Regulating Authority, direct a player to temporarily > leave the table) replies should be given by the partner of the player who > made the call in question. > > (c) The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a > supplementary > question until the partner's turn to call or play. > > (d) Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish > regulations > for written explanations. > > 2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender > at > that defender's turn to play may request honest*** explanations of the > opposing auction. At declarer's turn to play from her hand or from dummy > declarer may request honest*** explanations of a defender's call or card > play understandings. Honest*** explanations should be given on a like > basis > to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained. > > 3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law > 16B1 may apply. > > 4. If a player subsequently realises that that player's own explanation > was > erroneous or incomplete that player must call the Director immediately. > The > Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4. > > 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not > correct the error during the auction, nor may that player indicate by any > mannerism (as in a shrug, glare, frown etc.) that a mistake has been > made. > "Mistaken explanation" here includes failure to alert or announce as > regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do > not require. > > (b) Nevertheless, that player must still give honest*** explanations of > partner's subsequent calls whether or not those honest*** explanations > indirectly indicate to partner that partner has erred. Such an indirect > indication is unauthorized information, so Law 73C and/or Law 75A may > apply > to partner. > > (c) That player must call the Director and inform the opponents that, in > that player's opinion, partner's explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) > but > only at the first legal opportunity, which is > (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. > (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction (but > before > the opening lead is faced, and preferably before the opening lead is > selected). > > 6. If the Director judges that a player has based an action on > misinformation given to that player by an opponent see, as appropriate, > Law > 21 or Law 47E. > > G. Incorrect Procedure > > 1. (a) Asking a question solely for partner's benefit is an infraction. > The > Director applies Law 90 or Law 91. > > (b) Asking a question solely for the purpose of making either side create > unauthorized information is an infraction. The Director applies Law 90 or > Law 91. > > 2. Except as the Regulating Authority allows a player may not consult > that > player's own System Card and notes during the auction and play periods, > but > see Law 40B2(b). > > * When the calls are not spoken responders must ensure that it is clear > to > an enquiring opponent what calls have been made. > > ** Declarer's first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an > opening > lead out of turn. > > *** Unintentional errors in explanation are honest. Dishonest intentional > misexplanations could well receive Law 72B1 and Law 91 Disciplinary > Penalties. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 Oct 31 01:57:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:57:10 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Law 16 filtering [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 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 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.* 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, 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20111031/008be665/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 31 02:22:04 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:22:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] meaning of second meaning in L27B1b [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:49:49 -0400, wrote: > 2018 Law 27 ? INSUFFICIENT BID > > A. Acceptance of Insufficient Bid. > > 1. Any insufficient bid in rotation may be accepted (treated as legal) at > the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if LHO calls. > > 2. If a player makes an insufficient bid out of rotation, then either Law > 29A applies or Law 31 applies. > > B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted. > > If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see Law 27A1 above) > it > must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see clause 3 > below). Then > > 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid > in > the same denomination and in the Director's opinion both the insufficient > bidder's intended meaning* for the insufficient bid and the pre-existing > mutual partnership meaning* for the legal substituted call are > incontrovertibly not artificial (i.e. natural, see Definitions), then the > auction and play proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not > apply, but see Law 27D below. > > (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal > call that in the Director's opinion has the same pre-existing mutual > partnership meaning* as, or a more precise pre-existing mutual > partnership > meaning* than, the insufficient bidder's intended meaning for the > insufficient bid (such meaning* of the replacement call being fully > contained within the possible meanings* of the insufficient bid) the > auction and play proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not > apply, but see Law 27D below. > > 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected > by > a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender's partner must pass whenever > it > is the partner's turn to call. Law 26 lead restrictions have been > abolished > in this latest edition of the Lawbook, but Law 16D applies. Law 23 may > also > apply. > > 3. except as provided in B1(b) above, if the offender attempts to > substitute a double or a redouble for the insufficient bid the attempted > replacement call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the > foregoing allows and the offender's partner must then pass whenever it is > the partner's turn to call. Law 26 lead restrictions have been abolished > in > this latest edition of the Lawbook, but Law 16D applies. Law 23 may also > apply. > > 4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with > another insufficient bid the Director rules as in clause 3 above if the > LHO > does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as Law 27A above allows. > > C. Premature Replacement > > If the offender replaces the insufficient bid before the Director has > ruled > on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as Law 27A > above > allows, the substitution stands. The Director applies the relevant > foregoing section to the substitution. > > D. Non-offending Side Damaged. > > 1. If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of > the > play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of > the board could well have been different and in consequence the > non-offending side is damaged, the Director shall award an adjusted score > (see Law 12). In this adjustment the Director should seek to recover as > nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient > bid not occurred. > > 2. Law 73C does not apply to the insufficient bid, but Law 73C may apply > to > any remark by the insufficient bidder. > > E. Indicative Examples of Law 27 Rulings > > [West dealer and bidding] > 1C - 1S - 1H (showing 4 or more hearts and 6+ hcp; not accepted). The > Director accepts East's replacement of 1H by a negative Double which > either > has the same meaning or, in other partnership agreements, shows hearts > and > diamonds and then it is contained in the meaning of the 1H-bid, just > showing hearts. The Director also accepts 2H under B1(a). > A take-out Double normally does not show specified suits. When West opens > 1S and North follows with 1H (due to North falsely believing that North > was > dealer), and East does not accept 1H, the replacement call of a take-out > Double does not allow South to take part in the normal auction, while 2H > instead allows for a normal continuation. However if the System Card > shows > that such a take-out Double promises 4 hearts, it is acceptable if a 1H > opening bid - which North thought North was making - can be made with a > 4-card suit, but not if it promises a 5-card suit. > > * The "meaning" of (information available from) a call is the knowledge > of > what it shows and what it excludes. > For each and every sufficient call (including the replacement call for an > insufficient bid) its "meaning" is the pre-existing mutual partnership > understanding, not the unilateral intent of one partner. An insufficient > bid is an exception, with its "meaning" being defined by the intent of > the > insufficient bidder. Thus, to avoid creating unnecessary unauthorized > information, the Director may wish to question the insufficient bidder > away > from the table. > The Director may initially ignore very trivial and/or very infrequent > variances in the "meaning" of a replacement call, striving to gain a > bridge > result at the table, provided that the Director stands ready to later > protect the non-offending side, if required, with a Law 27D ruling. > Thanks. THis is a great resource, although I think we have tried to go beyond that definition of the insufficient bid. But the two problems I am talking about are independent of how you define the meaning of the second bid. As long as you don't talk about mutual communication, which none of the other laws do. If the players think the proposed replacement bid has different meanings, it is very awkward at best to make a ruling. Go ahead, try. The problem occurs both ways, if you have to tell the player that her bid doens't mean what she thought, or if you let her make the replacement bid and the partner can figure out the meaning from the first insufficient bid. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 31 04:35:37 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:35:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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". On the other hand, Robert Frick may be proposing to vastly increase the scope of Reviews of the Auction, so that Reviews can occur during the play or when deciding whether to claim. Then that has an unintended consequence of what BoardGameGeek describes as Analysis Paralysis and what chess describes as the Kotov Syndrome. Wikipedia -> In Kotov's 1971 book Think Like a Grandmaster, he described a situation when a player thinks very hard for a long time in a complicated position but does not find a clear path, then running low on time quickly makes a poor move, Richard Hills -> In tournament chess it is only the snail herself who is disadvantaged by running low on time. But in Duplicate Bridge the innocent opponents are also placed under pressure by a player's Analysis Paralysis, so the 2018 Laws of Duplicate Bridge should discourage any time wasting which is not essential to the nature of the game. 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/20111031/b3066014/attachment.html From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 09:17:58 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:17:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals In-Reply-To: <5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1> <4EAD9833.603@gmail.com> <5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> Message-ID: <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> On 30/10/2011 20:32, Larry wrote: > That sounds about right. > I think somebody passed out a silly contract by mistake (3N other room). TD > involved, Arguement in corridor, but I could not understand what happened. This one from the room where Richard Grenside and I were directing? S/-, Screens 7 JT832 AJT743 7 K95 AQT86 A75 K64 98 52 AKQ93 J85 J432 Q9 KQ6 T642 West North East South -- -- -- Pass 1 C* 2 S** 3 C*** 3 S 3 NT pass pass pass * Not alerted by west to south Explained as a strong club by east to north ** Explained as clubs or the red suits by north (there agreement over a strong club) Not alerted by south as 2S is natural over a natural 1C opener *** Artificial game force Dx lead, down 2. Director call after the hand was over. There were 2 problems on the hand: 1. West's failure to alert 1C, so south did not realize that the strong club defence applied here. 2. The NS convention card was not fully filled out, in particular the section against strong opening bids was virtually empty. West claimed that he checked before play and if he knew that north had the red suits, he'd bid something else. South said he checked the EW card but by the time board 7 came up, he had forgotten that they were playing Precision. When asked, west could not give a convincing sequence if the 2S bid had been alerted on his side. My first reaction was that if west forgot to alert 1C, he has to suffer the consequences of that. Richard felt that south had a duty to check about the meaning of the 1C bid. We discussed it for a bit with the other TD's without reaching a real conclusion. There was some time pressure involved, it was 15:10 and the captains meeting was supposed to start at 15:20. In the meantime, somebody figured out that the table result meant that both teams qualified, with NS having the 4th pick for a quarterfinal opponent and EW the 5th pick. Adjusting to any positive score for EW meant that EW would have the 4th pick and NS the 5th pick. That made the whole discussion somewhat irrelevant. In the end, we decided to adjust to 4S,=. Probably not our best decision of the whole event and definitely not one where we fully followed the correct procedure, but then again, it didn't matter much what we decided and both sides were happy with the decision. 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 larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Oct 31 12:59:51 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:59:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On 30/10/2011 20:32, Larry wrote: >> That sounds about right. >> I think somebody passed out a silly contract by mistake (3N other room). >> TD >> involved, Arguement in corridor, but I could not understand what >> happened. > > This one from the room where Richard Grenside and I were directing? > > S/-, Screens > > 7 > JT832 > AJT743 > 7 > K95 AQT86 > A75 K64 > 98 52 > AKQ93 J85 > J432 > Q9 > KQ6 > T642 > > West North East South > -- -- -- Pass > 1 C* 2 S** 3 C*** 3 S > 3 NT pass pass pass > > * Not alerted by west to south > Explained as a strong club by east to north > > ** Explained as clubs or the red suits by north (there agreement over a > strong club) > Not alerted by south as 2S is natural over a natural 1C opener > > *** Artificial game force > > Dx lead, down 2. Director call after the hand was over. > > There were 2 problems on the hand: > > 1. West's failure to alert 1C, so south did not realize that the strong > club > defence applied here. > > 2. The NS convention card was not fully filled out, in particular the > section > against strong opening bids was virtually empty. West claimed that he > checked before play and if he knew that north had the red suits, he'd > bid > something else. South said he checked the EW card but by the time board > 7 came up, he had forgotten that they were playing Precision. > > When asked, west could not give a convincing sequence if the 2S bid had > been alerted on his side. > > My first reaction was that if west forgot to alert 1C, he has to suffer > the > consequences of that. Richard felt that south had a duty to check about > the meaning of the 1C bid. We discussed it for a bit with the other TD's > without reaching a real conclusion. > > There was some time pressure involved, it was 15:10 and the captains > meeting was supposed to start at 15:20. In the meantime, somebody figured > out that the table result meant that both teams qualified, with NS having > the 4th pick for a quarterfinal opponent and EW the 5th pick. Adjusting > to any positive score for EW meant that EW would have the 4th pick and NS > the 5th pick. That made the whole discussion somewhat irrelevant. > > In the end, we decided to adjust to 4S,=. Probably not our best decision > of the whole event and definitely not one where we fully followed the > correct procedure, but then again, it didn't matter much what we decided > and both sides were happy with the decision. > > Henk Yep, thanks. I was watching the other room and all sorts of comments were being thrown about. P.S... I started on an ICL 1903 (Cobol) in 1972. 32K I think, but run 3-shifts with a staff of 30+ From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 31 13:07:30 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:07:30 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals In-Reply-To: <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7091ADEE3AF042ECACC9C2FB169ECD6C@G3> [Henk Uijterwaal] This one from the room where Richard Grenside and I were directing? S/-, Screens 7 JT832 AJT743 7 K95 AQT86 A75 K64 98 52 AKQ93 J85 J432 Q9 KQ6 T642 West North East South -- -- -- Pass 1 C* 2 S** 3 C*** 3 S 3 NT pass pass pass * Not alerted by west to south Explained as a strong club by east to north ** Explained as clubs or the red suits by north (there agreement over a strong club) Not alerted by south as 2S is natural over a natural 1C opener *** Artificial game force Dx lead, down 2. Director call after the hand was over. There were 2 problems on the hand: 1. West's failure to alert 1C, so south did not realize that the strong club defence applied here. 2. The NS convention card was not fully filled out, in particular the section against strong opening bids was virtually empty. West claimed that he checked before play and if he knew that north had the red suits, he'd bid something else. South said he checked the EW card but by the time board 7 came up, he had forgotten that they were playing Precision. When asked, west could not give a convincing sequence if the 2S bid had been alerted on his side. My first reaction was that if west forgot to alert 1C, he has to suffer the consequences of that. Richard felt that south had a duty to check about the meaning of the 1C bid. We discussed it for a bit with the other TD's without reaching a real conclusion. There was some time pressure involved, it was 15:10 and the captains meeting was supposed to start at 15:20. In the meantime, somebody figured out that the table result meant that both teams qualified, with NS having the 4th pick for a quarterfinal opponent and EW the 5th pick. Adjusting to any positive score for EW meant that EW would have the 4th pick and NS the 5th pick. That made the whole discussion somewhat irrelevant. In the end, we decided to adjust to 4S,=. Probably not our best decision of the whole event and definitely not one where we fully followed the correct procedure, but then again, it didn't matter much what we decided and both sides were happy with the decision. [Nigel] Thanks. Good fun. Henk and Richard seem to have anticipated Gratttan's request to re-write the law-book :) The EW damage was self-inflicted. The original EW infraction (failure to disclose the meaning of 1C) caused the damage and I think the directors should rule result stands. South has no duty of care -- to protect *West* from EW disclosure infractions. Only if *South* had claimed damage might Richard be right to ask why he had not asked about West's 1C bid. From g3 at nige1.com Mon Oct 31 13:21:06 2011 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:21:06 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals In-Reply-To: <7091ADEE3AF042ECACC9C2FB169ECD6C@G3> References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1><4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> <7091ADEE3AF042ECACC9C2FB169ECD6C@G3> Message-ID: <6A23E4C5A55E46DC8D5700B58D6499F9@G3> Maybe I'm hasty to criticise. Sorry. Presumably Henk and Richard consulted with their colleagues so that their judgement in this case was endorsed by the other top WBF directors. From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 13:29:20 2011 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:29:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals In-Reply-To: <6A23E4C5A55E46DC8D5700B58D6499F9@G3> References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1><4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> <7091ADEE3AF042ECACC9C2FB169ECD6C@G3> <6A23E4C5A55E46DC8D5700B58D6499F9@G3> Message-ID: <4EAE94A0.3060609@gmail.com> On 31/10/2011 13:21, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Maybe I'm hasty to criticise. Sorry. Presumably Henk and Richard consulted > with their colleagues so that their judgement in this case was endorsed by > the other top WBF directors. As I said, we were discussing this with other directors when somebody pointed out that the effects of any adjustment were small: either EW or NS would finish 4th, the other team would then be 5th. Considering the time pressure, we then stopped discussing the ruling. 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 bmeadows666 at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 13:50:02 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:50:02 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals In-Reply-To: References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4EAE997A.8010206@gmail.com> 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? Brian. From svenpran at online.no Mon Oct 31 14:00:40 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:00:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals In-Reply-To: <4EAE997A.8010206@gmail.com> References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> <4EAE997A.8010206@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006001cc97cd$17bd17e0$473747a0$@online.no> > 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? > > > Brian. [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. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 31 14:51:05 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:51:05 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:35:37 -0400, 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". > > On the other hand, Robert Frick may be proposing to vastly increase the > scope of Reviews of the Auction, so that Reviews can occur during the > play > or when deciding whether to claim. Then that has an unintended > consequence > of what BoardGameGeek describes as Analysis Paralysis and what chess > describes as the Kotov Syndrome. > > Wikipedia -> > > In Kotov's 1971 book Think Like a Grandmaster, he described a situation > when a player thinks very hard for a long time in a complicated position > but does not find a clear path, then running low on time quickly makes a > poor move, > > Richard Hills -> > > In tournament chess it is only the snail herself who is disadvantaged by > running low on time. But in Duplicate Bridge the innocent opponents are > also placed under pressure by a player's Analysis Paralysis, so the 2018 > Laws of Duplicate Bridge should discourage any time wasting which is not > essential to the nature of the game. > Laughing. It maybe that my suggestion isn't good. But isn't that begging the question? The auction is 2D X RHO asks you what your partner's double means. It depends on what the 2D bid meant. As far as I know, Richard is the only person in the nearby galaxy who thinks it's inappropriate to ask at this point what the 2D bid meant. LHO is on lead and RHO has a penalty card. You have lead options. You can't ask at this point the meaning of one of their bids? There is an insufficient bid. You have the decision of whether or not to accept this bid. Can you ask questions about the meaning of bids in this situation? We can keep the current laws and make this a tortorous investigation into whether or not it is your turn to call, struggling to get to what we know is the right ruling even though the law actually seems to point the wrong way. Or we can make this a really obvious easy decision. Let's go for easy and obvious! From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Oct 31 15:37:51 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:37:51 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Transnationals References: <7B31EA22584C48C9B9D83E5B1D478727@changeme1><4EAD9833.603@gmail.com><5AACB4EDB22F4CE7BFF4D076CA684862@changeme1> <4EAE59B6.2000104@gmail.com> <4EAE997A.8010206@gmail.com> <006001cc97cd$17bd17e0$473747a0$@online.no> Message-ID: <956FAB5978804825A7C2B8CFE78DB090@changeme1> >> > 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? >> >> >> Brian. > > [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. Weeellll...needed a square-root, could not find one. Asked Chief Programmer, who asked DP manager...no good. Original geek in darkened room had to write a m/c code sub-routine. Wonderful days. L From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Oct 31 20:38:37 2011 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:38:37 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: From: "Robert Frick" > > 2D X > > RHO asks you what your partner's double means. It depends on what > the 2D > bid meant. As far as I know, Richard is the only person in the > nearby > galaxy who thinks it's inappropriate to ask at this point what the > 2D bid > meant. Add me. Default is that doubles of artificial openings show the suit, doubles of natural openings are takeout. That is common knowledge that need not be disclosed [L40 6 (a)] If a double is optional penalty (with a strong notrump hand), that is Alertable in the ACB:L. The same applies if the 2D is artificial and opponents play a double is takeout. Unusual agreement, Alertable in the ACBL. If there is no such regulation, then shame on the RA. If there is a failure to Alert, any damage will be redressed. There are too many people who ask only when interested in the auction, not otherwise. Marv Marvin L French www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 31 21:59:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:59:52 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EAA8D8C.7050700@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Hypothetical 2018 Law 85A3 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, or whether there are two non-offending sides, and the Director's view is that the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the Director shall then break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side. Alain Gottcheiner -> AG: Isn't this dangerous? Doesn't it mean that it would suffice for a pair to pretend that their opponents e.g. used the information from the tempo to get redress for an imaginary infraction? Both pairs having only verbal evidence to give. [snip] Richard Hills -> Good filtering. My revised version of the hypothetical 2018 Law 85 is: 2018 LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, the Director proceeds as follows: A. Director's Assessment 1. In determining the facts the Director's view shall be based on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence that the Director carefully and diligently collects.* 2. Verbal evidence is still evidence. While verbal evidence will often have lesser weight than written evidence** (and/or "the dog that did not bark in the night-time" absence of written evidence), verbal evidence usually does not have zero weight. So a Director who automatically ignores verbal evidence has committed a Director's Error (see Law 82C). The Director shall weight the veracity of verbal evidence according to internal consistency and also according to the past history of the player concerned. 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, or whether there are two non-offending sides, and the Director's considered view is that the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the Director shall then break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side (and now 4 below applies). 4. If the Director is then satisfied that the facts have been ascertained, the Director shall make a considered* Law 84 ruling. B. Facts Not Determined If the Director is unable to determine the facts to the Director's satisfaction, the Director shall make a considered* ruling that will permit play to continue. * 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. 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. ** Sometimes verbal evidence will have greater weight than written evidence. For example, one player presents 30 pages of the sixth edition of their system notes to "prove" that that player's explanation of "Snapdragon Double" was correct. But the player's partner verbally explains that the sixth edition was unread, and that the "Snapdragon Double" convention was not in the fifth edition. Based on that verbal evidence, the Director correctly rules that "Snapdragon Double" was misinformation, as an accurate explanation should have been, "We do not have a current agreement, because partner has not yet read the sixth edition of our system notes, but I am incorrectly assuming that partner has done so, hence our fifth edition agreement is not current either." 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/20111031/4e9cab6b/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 31 22:17:43 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:17:43 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Proli-fora-tion. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:38:37 -0400, Marvin French wrote: > > From: "Robert Frick" >> >> 2D X >> >> RHO asks you what your partner's double means. It depends on what >> the 2D >> bid meant. As far as I know, Richard is the only person in the >> nearby >> galaxy who thinks it's inappropriate to ask at this point what the >> 2D bid >> meant. > > Add me. Default is that doubles of artificial openings show the > suit, doubles of natural openings are takeout. That is common > knowledge that need not be disclosed [L40 6 (a)] If a double is > optional penalty (with a strong notrump hand), that is Alertable in > the ACB:L. The same applies if the 2D is artificial and opponents > play a double is takeout. Unusual agreement, Alertable in the ACBL. > If there is no such regulation, then shame on the RA. > > If there is a failure to Alert, any damage will be redressed. There > are too many people who ask only when interested in the auction, not > otherwise. Suppose the 2D opening is alerted. You play one defense over Flannery, another other mini-Roman, and a third for Multi. You still do not ask the meaning of the 2D call when asked the meaning of your partner's double? I am trying to make sure you understand the question. Your comments suggest not. Otherwise, I am happy to add you to the list. > > Marv > Marvin L French > www.marvinfrench.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Oct 31 22:28:06 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:28:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Just the facts, ma'am [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:59:52 -0400, wrote: > > Hypothetical 2018 Law 85A3 > > 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, or > whether there are two non-offending sides, and the Director's view is > that > the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the Director shall then > break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side. > > Alain Gottcheiner -> > > AG: Isn't this dangerous? Doesn't it mean that it would suffice for a > pair > to pretend that their opponents e.g. used the information from the tempo > to > get redress for an imaginary infraction? Both pairs having only verbal > evidence to give. > [snip] > > Richard Hills -> > > Good filtering. My revised version of the hypothetical 2018 Law 85 is: > > 2018 LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS > > When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation > in > which the facts are not agreed upon, the Director proceeds as follows: > > A. Director's Assessment > > 1. In determining the facts the Director's view shall be based on the > balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight > of > the evidence that the Director carefully and diligently collects.* > > 2. Verbal evidence is still evidence. While verbal evidence will often > have > lesser weight than written evidence** (and/or "the dog that did not bark > in > the night-time" absence of written evidence), verbal evidence usually > does > not have zero weight. So a Director who automatically ignores verbal > evidence has committed a Director's Error (see Law 82C). The Director > shall > weight the veracity of verbal evidence according to internal consistency > and also according to the past history of the player concerned. > > 3. If the disputed fact is between whether there is an offending side, or > whether there are two non-offending sides, and the Director's considered > view is that the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the Director > shall then break the deadlock by ruling that there is an offending side > (and now 4 below applies). > > 4. If the Director is then satisfied that the facts have been > ascertained, > the Director shall make a considered* Law 84 ruling. > > B. Facts Not Determined > > If the Director is unable to determine the facts to the Director's > satisfaction, the Director shall make a considered* ruling that will > permit > play to continue. > > * 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 First, this revision does not include or address the problems I mentioned. It is as if I was writing on water. This seems kind of ridiculous. I don't know if I ever get 15 minutes to quietly think. I certainly don't get that for a ruling on the next to last round. Are you trying to make a law agaqinst quick rulings or dirty rulings? Or just quick and dirty rulings but slow dirty rulings are okay? You HAVE TO THINK CAREFULLY about what you are saying. (Regulating > Authorities > may vary this recommended time) to give a considered ruling. 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. > > ** Sometimes verbal evidence will have greater weight than written > evidence. For example, one player presents 30 pages of the sixth edition > of > their system notes to "prove" that that player's explanation of > "Snapdragon > Double" was correct. But the player's partner verbally explains that the > sixth edition was unread, and that the "Snapdragon Double" convention was > not in the fifth edition. Based on that verbal evidence, the Director > correctly rules that "Snapdragon Double" was misinformation, as an > accurate > explanation should have been, "We do not have a current agreement, > because > partner has not yet read the sixth edition of our system notes, but I am > incorrectly assuming that partner has done so, hence our fifth edition > agreement is not current either." > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 31 23:41:23 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:41:23 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part one [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 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.....". Action - at least one Director (who likes his words to have a single uniform meaning) has been puzzled by the exact meaning of Action, so this draft gives an explicitly variable definition to Action. Artificial Call - definition vastly simplified, and a simple (revised to even simpler) definition of Natural Call included. Contract - the mention of "odd tricks" is now followed by the bracketed explanation "(tricks in excess of six)", consistent with the bracketed format of the 2007 Definition of "Bid". Declarer - addition of a cross-reference advising grass-roots players and grass-roots Directors of a possible last-minute change in the declaring side. False Card - comprehensive definition based on the WBF Code of Practice, page 8. 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). 2018 DEFINITIONS, part one Action ? Usually shorthand for the phrase "either a call or a play", but when obvious by context has a dictionary meaning. Adjusted Score ? A score awarded by the Director (see Law 12). It is either "artificial" or "assigned". Alert ? A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation. Appendix A is a default Alert procedure for those Regulating Authorities disinclined to create their own Alert procedures. Artificial Call ? Not a Natural Call (q.v.) Auction ? 1. The process of determining the contract by means of successive calls. It begins when the first call is made. 2. The aggregate of calls made (see Law 17). Bid ? An undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination. Board ? 1. A duplicate board as described in Law 2. 2. The four hands as originally dealt and placed in a duplicate board for play during a session (also referred to as a "deal"). Call ? Any bid, double, redouble or pass. Cancelled ? see "Withdrawn". Contestant ? In an individual event, a player; in a pair event, two players playing as partners throughout the event; in a team event, four or more players playing as team-mates. Contract ? The undertaking by declarer's side to win, at the denomination named, the number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) specified in the final bid, whether undoubled, doubled or redoubled (see Law 22). Deal ? 1. The distribution of the pack to form the hands of the four players. 2. The cards so distributed considered as a unit, including the auction and play thereof. Declarer ? The player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. That player irrevocably becomes declarer when a correct opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn, and see Laws 20F4, 20F5 and 21B for a possible last-minute change in the declaring side). Defender ? An opponent of (presumed) declarer. Denomination ? The suit or no trump specified in a bid. Double ? A call over an opponent's bid increasing the scoring value of fulfilled or defeated contracts (see Laws 19A and 77). Dummy ? 1. Declarer's partner, who irrevocably becomes dummy when a correct opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn). 2. Declarer's partner's cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead. Event ? A contest of one or more sessions. Extraneous ? Not part of the lawful procedures of the game. False Card ? Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer's reading of the fall of the defenders' cards is then at declarer's own risk. But over-frequent false carding by the defenders create new defensive methods, which must then be disclosed to the declarer (see Law 40C1). Follow Suit ? Play a card of the suit that has been led. Game ? 100 or more trick points scored on one deal. Hand ? The cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereof. Honour ? Any Ace, King, Queen, Jack or Ten. 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.). Lead ? The first card played to a trick. LHO ? Left-hand opponent. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/f94b76af/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Oct 31 23:59:33 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:59:33 +1100 Subject: [BLML] The Definitions Hallows, part two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: 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". -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20111031/23f17a9c/attachment-0001.html