From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Sep 1 19:52:09 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:52:09 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > To my mind the key phrase is "lots of hidden information". Not only does > that hidden information make Duplicate Bridge devilishly tricky to play, > the hidden information also makes the rules of Duplicate Bridge > devilishly > tricky to design without creating any real ambiguities. Ambiguities, holes, and inconsistencies. One could be more forgiving if there wasn't an obviously better way of constructing the laws. Grattan could post the proposed changes to blml and we could look for problems. That costs him nothing (although he cannot use this method if he constructs the laws the night before). He could at least send them to the WBFLC representatives, so they could consider the laws carefully. I don't think those are the best people for debugging the laws, part of the reason being that they are busy important people with probably better things to do than immerse themselves in the tedia that we blmlers love. That's why it is better to publish them to blml. Try to figure out why they don't do this. > > An even greater challenge is designing the rules without creating merely > apparent ambiguities (i.e. creating a straightforwardly "obvious" rule, > for > example creating a rule using the word "infringe", which is nevertheless > capable of being misconstrued by a blmler). Infringe is just an example of carelessness. The laws create and use the technical terms of infraction and irregularity. Why use the word infringe? It is a basic principle of law construction to use the defined terms whenever possible. And yes, this could cause people wondering why they used the term infringe, wondering if maybe it could have been an intelligent choice. (My memory is that it is one of those did-the-WBFLC-really-mean-to-say-what-they-said minutes, so anyone who carefully considered it is liable to be looking for solid ground, not new undefined terms.) Either the people of the WBFLC are incompetent, or...... They are bright people but it is really hard for one or two people to find those kinds of errors. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 2 00:52:42 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 08:52:42 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens, page 261 If you take the long view, the universe is just something small and round, like those water-filled balls which produce a miniature snowstorm when you shake them. (1) Robert Frick [snip] could at least send them to the WBFLC representatives, so they could consider the laws carefully. Richard Hills In December 2006 the draft 2007 Laws were in fact sent to each and every NBO for their comments. The NBO feedback did in fact improve many details of the final 2007 Lawbook. Robert Frick I don't think those are the best people for debugging the laws, part of the reason being that they are busy important people with probably better things to do than immerse themselves in the tedia that we blmlers love. That's why it is better to publish them to blml. Try to figure out why they don't do this. [snip] Richard Hills In a sense the WBF Drafting Committee already did do this, but in reverse. Rather than them publish draft Laws to blml, they let blml publish draft Laws to them. So at the end of 2006 blml was engaged in debating the tedia of the 1997 version of Law 65, and blmlers discovered an anomaly in that Law. By listening to the tedious blml debate, and by noticing the at-the-table habits of most bridge players, the WBF Drafting Committee was inspired to create the new 2007 Law 65B3. The WBF Drafting Committee also listened to tedious blml debate about the tedious Law 11. Many years ago on blml the very tedious David Stevenson :-) :-) observed an ambiguity in the final sentence of the 1997 version of Law 11 -> "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." Therefore the WBF Drafting Committee removed this ambiguity in the final sentence of the 2007 version of Law 11 -> "The Director does so rule, ***for example***, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." So if a blmler wants to rewrite the entire 2007 Lawbook into a hypothetical 2018 Lawbook, and publish the results Law-by-Law to blml, member(s) of the 2018 Drafting Committee may well read those posts and may well be occasionally inspired to create or rewrite Laws. Best wishes, Richard Hills Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens, page 261 footnote (1) Although, unless the ineffable plan is a lot more ineffable than it's given credit for, it does not have a giant plastic snowman at the bottom. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110901/8652ddf5/attachment.html From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 2 15:33:27 2011 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:33:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> Grattan "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." Therefore the WBF Drafting Committee removed this ambiguity in the final sentence of the 2007 version of Law 11 -> "The Director does so rule, ***for example***, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law." So if a blmler wants to rewrite the entire 2007 Lawbook into a hypothetical 2018 Lawbook, and publish the results Law-by-Law to blml, member(s) of the 2018 Drafting Committee may well read those posts and may well be occasionally inspired to create or rewrite Laws. Best wishes, Richard Hills Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens, page 261 footnote (1) Although, unless the ineffable plan is a lot more ineffable than it's given credit for, it does not have a giant plastic snowman at the bottom. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110902/e0b8181e/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 2 19:27:21 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:27:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> References: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:33:27 -0400, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan > Skype: grattan.endicott > > ******************************************* > > Is calf strain a bovine disease? > > ******************************************* > > > +=+ Hmmm...... > > I am under the impression that the Universe is disc > > shaped. If so, it tends to flatten the water-filled ball idea. > > The thought of blml as a debugger would not fill the > > WBFLC with enthusiasm. In the past, at least, its corporate > > rating of blml as collectively a savant in the subject has > > not soared to a high level. They have tended to feel that > > the superior opinions on blml emanate from personalities > > who are given access to material sent to their NBOs. > > In addition those of us who read blml regularly may > > be expected to bring up at least those suggestions from > > blml which seem to us to have possible merit. I am worried that you are not distinguishing intended content from the technical side. Intended content is like adding L27B1(b). I think the WBFLC did a great job on this for the lawbook. The second part is writing the laws so that they mean what you want them to mean (and no more than that). To stick to this example, L27B1(b) refers to the meaning of a insufficient bid, which presumably has no agreed meaning. If you had put this law out for public inspection, someone might have noticed this flaw. Then you fix it before you print the lawbook. No cost, only possible gain. One question is how much you would gain. Um, that's an empirical question. Try it for the minutes. The other question is the best way of doing it. Um, try something, see the problems, try to fix those problems. You have until 2017 to find the best method, and you are wasting time. Bob F. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 2 19:32:23 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:32:23 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13E2. Message-ID: This refers to when there is a pass out of rotation and then two more passes. What does it mean to say that the last two passes are cancelled? The first pass isn't cancelled? From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 20:31:42 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 20:31:42 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> Message-ID: <000101cc699e$90bbfc90$b233f5b0$@online.no> > Robert Frick [...] > I am worried that you are not distinguishing intended content from the > technical side. Intended content is like adding L27B1(b). I think the > WBFLC did a great job on this for the lawbook. > > The second part is writing the laws so that they mean what you want them > to mean (and no more than that). To stick to this example, L27B1(b) refers > to the meaning of a insufficient bid, which presumably has no agreed > meaning. If you had put this law out for public inspection, someone might > have noticed this flaw. Then you fix it before you print the lawbook. No > cost, only possible gain. [Sven Pran] I suppose Robert might be satisfied by how I believe most Directors apply Law 27B1(b): The meaning of the insufficient bid, i.e. as the Director is satisfied that the intention of the offender was when he made that bid? From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 20:39:07 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 20:39:07 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13E2. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000201cc699f$99381dd0$cba85970$@online.no> > Robert Frick > This refers to when there is a pass out of rotation and then two more passes. > What does it mean to say that the last two passes are cancelled? > The first pass isn't cancelled? [Sven Pran] Law 13? Are you sure you do not refer to either Law 34 or to Law 17E2 (to which Law 34 refers). However neither of these laws says anything like what you state? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 2 20:45:53 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:45:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L13E2. In-Reply-To: <000201cc699f$99381dd0$cba85970$@online.no> References: <000201cc699f$99381dd0$cba85970$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:39:07 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> This refers to when there is a pass out of rotation and then two more > passes. >> What does it mean to say that the last two passes are cancelled? >> The first pass isn't cancelled? > > [Sven Pran] Law 13? Are you sure you do not refer to either Law 34 or to > Law > 17E2 (to which Law 34 refers). > > However neither of these laws says anything like what you state? I know. So is it just mysterious? So if they changed the law to say that the first pass was an infraction and the subsequent passes were cancelled, that would be a different law, right? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 2 21:02:24 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:02:24 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101cc699e$90bbfc90$b233f5b0$@online.no> References: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> <000101cc699e$90bbfc90$b233f5b0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:31:42 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick > [...] >> I am worried that you are not distinguishing intended content from the >> technical side. Intended content is like adding L27B1(b). I think the >> WBFLC did a great job on this for the lawbook. >> >> The second part is writing the laws so that they mean what you want them >> to mean (and no more than that). To stick to this example, L27B1(b) >> refers >> to the meaning of a insufficient bid, which presumably has no agreed >> meaning. If you had put this law out for public inspection, someone >> might >> have noticed this flaw. Then you fix it before you print the lawbook. No >> cost, only possible gain. > > [Sven Pran] I suppose Robert might be satisfied by how I believe most > Directors apply Law 27B1(b): > > The meaning of the insufficient bid, i.e. as the Director is satisfied > that > the intention of the offender was when he made that bid? I used to think this. In response to partner's Blackwood, the player meant to show 2 aces and the queen of trumps by bidding 4H. She got the level wrong and she also confused 5H with 5S. Those are the given facts. What sufficient bid has the same meaning? According to your formulation, I should allow her to correct to 5S. If the lawbook had been clarified on this point in the way you described, I would have given her the 5S replacement bid as having her intended meaning. But without that direction, I constructed what I thought was a better law and followed that, giving her 5H as the nonbarring replacement bid. But I can't think of any way of formulating that into a law. Unless someone else can, I accept that (should someone try to correct the lawbook) the above formulation is probably best. From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 21:20:36 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:20:36 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L13E2. In-Reply-To: References: <000201cc699f$99381dd0$cba85970$@online.no> Message-ID: <000901cc69a5$6520caf0$2f6260d0$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:39:07 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> This refers to when there is a pass out of rotation and then two more > > passes. > >> What does it mean to say that the last two passes are cancelled? > >> The first pass isn't cancelled? > > > > [Sven Pran] Law 13? Are you sure you do not refer to either Law 34 or > > to Law > > 17E2 (to which Law 34 refers). > > > > However neither of these laws says anything like what you state? > > > I know. So is it just mysterious? So if they changed the law to say that the > first pass was an infraction and the subsequent passes were cancelled, that > would be a different law, right? [Sven Pran] Frankly I have no idea what you are aiming at. Law 17E2 makes it absolutely clear that if the auction ends with three consecutive passes out of which (at least) one is out of turn, and as a consequence a player has lost his turn to call during the last round of the auction then the auction is not ended, the turn to call returns to the player who had lost his turn to call, and all passes subsequent to his turn to call are cancelled. If it was South's turn to call but West, North and East passed in sequence without awaiting South's call in turn then all three passes are cancelled. If South passed in turn and then North and East both passed without awaiting West's call in turn then the two last passes are cancelled, and so on. What is the problem? From svenpran at online.no Fri Sep 2 21:29:01 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:29:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> <000101cc699e$90bbfc90$b233f5b0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000a01cc69a6$91b3f780$b51be680$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:31:42 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > > [...] > >> I am worried that you are not distinguishing intended content from > >> the technical side. Intended content is like adding L27B1(b). I think > >> the WBFLC did a great job on this for the lawbook. > >> > >> The second part is writing the laws so that they mean what you want > >> them to mean (and no more than that). To stick to this example, > >> L27B1(b) refers to the meaning of a insufficient bid, which > >> presumably has no agreed meaning. If you had put this law out for > >> public inspection, someone might have noticed this flaw. Then you fix > >> it before you print the lawbook. No cost, only possible gain. > > > > [Sven Pran] I suppose Robert might be satisfied by how I believe most > > Directors apply Law 27B1(b): > > > > The meaning of the insufficient bid, i.e. as the Director is satisfied > > that the intention of the offender was when he made that bid? > > I used to think this. > > In response to partner's Blackwood, the player meant to show 2 aces and the > queen of trumps by bidding 4H. She got the level wrong and she also > confused 5H with 5S. Those are the given facts. What sufficient bid has the > same meaning? [Sven Pran] You describe two mistakes: 1: She got the level wrong and the Director might be convinced that 4H was a misbid for 5H but for whatever reason not eligible to a Law 25A correction. 2: She miscounted her key cards and answered in hearts instead of in spades. I would allow her to replace her insufficient bit of 4H with 5H as a call that has the same or a more precise meaning as the insufficient bid. I would not allow a 5S bid to be understood as a bid with this meaning. > According to your formulation, I should allow her to correct to 5S. If the > lawbook had been clarified on this point in the way you described, I would > have given her the 5S replacement bid as having her intended meaning. But > without that direction, I constructed what I thought was a better law and > followed that, giving her 5H as the nonbarring replacement bid.[Sven Pran] [Sven Pran] NO! The "meaning" of her insufficient bid was apparently that of 5H not 5S. > > But I can't think of any way of formulating that into a law. Unless someone > else can, I accept that (should someone try to correct the > lawbook) the above formulation is probably best. [Sven Pran] You shouldn't need to. From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Fri Sep 2 22:04:55 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:04:55 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> References: <4EEF78E579F7468AB84C385E907B0302@WINOS3Q4NRDA7L> Message-ID: <4E6136E7.9010106@gmail.com> On 09/02/2011 09:33 AM, Grattan wrote: > > The thought of blml as a debugger would not fill the > > WBFLC with enthusiasm. In the past, at least, its corporate > > rating of blml as collectively a savant in the subject has > > not soared to a high level. They have tended to feel that > > the superior opinions on blml emanate from personalities > > who are given access to material sent to their NBOs. > > In addition those of us who read blml regularly may > > be expected to bring up at least those suggestions from > > blml which seem to us to have possible merit. > The only problem with this method of doing things is that it's notoriously difficult to find the flaws in a complex document that you've written yourself. A proof read of the final draft of TFLB should be done by people who have had at most minimal, and preferably zero, involvement in producing the draft version(s). Just to forestall Grattan, given his response last time I expressed the above opinion, I am in no way casting doubt on the validity of the academic qualifications held by any member of the WBFLC. Clear enough? Brian. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 3 02:04:06 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:04:06 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L17E2. In-Reply-To: <000901cc69a5$6520caf0$2f6260d0$@online.no> References: <000201cc699f$99381dd0$cba85970$@online.no> <000901cc69a5$6520caf0$2f6260d0$@online.no> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:20:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:39:07 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> This refers to when there is a pass out of rotation and then two more >> > passes. >> >> What does it mean to say that the last two passes are cancelled? >> >> The first pass isn't cancelled? >> > >> > [Sven Pran] Law 13? Are you sure you do not refer to either Law 34 or >> > to Law >> > 17E2 (to which Law 34 refers). >> > >> > However neither of these laws says anything like what you state? >> >> >> I know. So is it just mysterious? So if they changed the law to say that > the >> first pass was an infraction and the subsequent passes were cancelled, > that >> would be a different law, right? > > [Sven Pran] Frankly I have no idea what you are aiming at. > > Law 17E2 makes it absolutely clear that if the auction ends with three > consecutive passes out of which (at least) one is out of turn, and as a > consequence a player has lost his turn to call during the last round of > the > auction then the auction is not ended, the turn to call returns to the > player who had lost his turn to call, and all passes subsequent to his > turn > to call are cancelled. > > If it was South's turn to call but West, North and East passed in > sequence > without awaiting South's call in turn then all three passes are > cancelled. > If South passed in turn and then North and East both passed without > awaiting > West's call in turn then the two last passes are cancelled, and so on. > > What is the problem? I FINALLY figured it out. The exact phrase is: "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement." So, in your example (where it was South's turn to call and West, North, and East passed), North and East's passes are cancelled via L17E and then West's pass is treated as a call out of rotation with the appropriate penalties. Is that what you were saying, Sven? Is this how directors rule? I really don't get to see other directors in action and I don't attend meetings. And if you have read this far, the year for that minute is 2008. From svenpran at online.no Sat Sep 3 06:12:45 2011 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 06:12:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] L17E2. In-Reply-To: References: <000201cc699f$99381dd0$cba85970$@online.no> <000901cc69a5$6520caf0$2f6260d0$@online.no> Message-ID: <000001cc69ef$bcc21d00$36465700$@online.no> > Robert Frick > On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:20:36 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: > > >> Robert Frick > >> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:39:07 -0400, Sven Pran > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Robert Frick > >> >> This refers to when there is a pass out of rotation and then two > >> >> more > >> > passes. > >> >> What does it mean to say that the last two passes are cancelled? > >> >> The first pass isn't cancelled? > >> > > >> > [Sven Pran] Law 13? Are you sure you do not refer to either Law 34 > >> > or to Law > >> > 17E2 (to which Law 34 refers). > >> > > >> > However neither of these laws says anything like what you state? > >> > >> > >> I know. So is it just mysterious? So if they changed the law to say > >> that > > the > >> first pass was an infraction and the subsequent passes were > >> cancelled, > > that > >> would be a different law, right? > > > > [Sven Pran] Frankly I have no idea what you are aiming at. > > > > Law 17E2 makes it absolutely clear that if the auction ends with three > > consecutive passes out of which (at least) one is out of turn, and as > > a consequence a player has lost his turn to call during the last round > > of the auction then the auction is not ended, the turn to call returns > > to the player who had lost his turn to call, and all passes subsequent > > to his turn to call are cancelled. > > > > If it was South's turn to call but West, North and East passed in > > sequence without awaiting South's call in turn then all three passes > > are cancelled. > > If South passed in turn and then North and East both passed without > > awaiting West's call in turn then the two last passes are cancelled, > > and so on. > > > > What is the problem? > > I FINALLY figured it out. The exact phrase is: > > "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation are > cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement." > > So, in your example (where it was South's turn to call and West, North, and > East passed), North and East's passes are cancelled via L17E and then West's > pass is treated as a call out of rotation with the appropriate penalties. Is that > what you were saying, Sven? [Sven Pran] Not exactly: As West's pass out of rotation was "accepted" by North there would not normally be any penalties (actually "rectifications"). But a South thereby lost his turn to call and the auction became closed then all the passes (beginning with the pass from West) are cancelled and Law 16D applies to (all) the cancelled calls. > Is this how directors rule? I really don't get to see other directors in action > and I don't attend meetings. And if you have read this far, the year for that > minute is 2008. [Sven Pran] I don't remember studying that particular minute and do not understand Law 17 the way your quotation seems to indicate. Law 17E2 is clear on the point that the auction reverts to the player who missed his turn (in this case South) and that all the subsequent passes are cancelled (in this case all three passes). It appears to me as if the minute you quote states that only the cancelled pass from West shall be considered out of rotation for the purpose of applying Law 16D - note the last sentence in Law 17E: "Law 16D applies to the cancelled calls, any player who has passed out of rotation being an offender." From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 3 17:27:41 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:27:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] L17E2. In-Reply-To: <000001cc69ef$bcc21d00$36465700$@online.no> References: <000201cc699f$99381dd0$cba85970$@online.no> <000901cc69a5$6520caf0$2f6260d0$@online.no> <000001cc69ef$bcc21d00$36465700$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:12:45 -0400, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:20:36 -0400, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:39:07 -0400, Sven Pran >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Robert Frick >> >> >> This refers to when there is a pass out of rotation and then two >> >> >> more >> >> > passes. >> >> >> What does it mean to say that the last two passes are cancelled? >> >> >> The first pass isn't cancelled? >> >> > >> >> > [Sven Pran] Law 13? Are you sure you do not refer to either Law 34 >> >> > or to Law >> >> > 17E2 (to which Law 34 refers). >> >> > >> >> > However neither of these laws says anything like what you state? >> >> >> >> >> >> I know. So is it just mysterious? So if they changed the law to say >> >> that >> > the >> >> first pass was an infraction and the subsequent passes were >> >> cancelled, >> > that >> >> would be a different law, right? >> > >> > [Sven Pran] Frankly I have no idea what you are aiming at. >> > >> > Law 17E2 makes it absolutely clear that if the auction ends with three >> > consecutive passes out of which (at least) one is out of turn, and as >> > a consequence a player has lost his turn to call during the last round >> > of the auction then the auction is not ended, the turn to call returns >> > to the player who had lost his turn to call, and all passes subsequent >> > to his turn to call are cancelled. >> > >> > If it was South's turn to call but West, North and East passed in >> > sequence without awaiting South's call in turn then all three passes >> > are cancelled. >> > If South passed in turn and then North and East both passed without >> > awaiting West's call in turn then the two last passes are cancelled, >> > and so on. >> > >> > What is the problem? >> >> I FINALLY figured it out. The exact phrase is: >> >> "When applying Law 17E, passes following the first pass out of rotation > are >> cancelled and only the first pass out of rotation is an infringement." >> >> So, in your example (where it was South's turn to call and West, North, > and >> East passed), North and East's passes are cancelled via L17E and then > West's >> pass is treated as a call out of rotation with the appropriate >> penalties. > Is that >> what you were saying, Sven? > > [Sven Pran] Not exactly: As West's pass out of rotation was "accepted" by > North there would not normally be any penalties (actually > "rectifications"). > But a South thereby lost his turn to call and the auction became closed > then > all the passes (beginning with the pass from West) are cancelled and Law > 16D > applies to (all) the cancelled calls. > >> Is this how directors rule? I really don't get to see other directors in > action >> and I don't attend meetings. And if you have read this far, the year for > that >> minute is 2008. > [Sven Pran] I don't remember studying that particular minute and do not > understand Law 17 the way your quotation seems to indicate. > Law 17E2 is clear on the point that the auction reverts to the player who > missed his turn (in this case South) and that all the subsequent passes > are > cancelled (in this case all three passes). > > It appears to me as if the minute you quote states that only the > cancelled > pass from West shall be considered out of rotation for the purpose of > applying Law 16D - note the last sentence in Law 17E: "Law 16D applies > to > the cancelled calls, any player who has passed out of rotation being an > offender." That doesn't work. According the the minute, only the last two passes are cancelled. You can't have the first pass not-cancelled and then apply a law pertaining to cancelled calls. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 5 00:38:28 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 08:38:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] L64B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E6136E7.9010106@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows The only problem with this method of doing things is that it's notoriously difficult to find the flaws in a complex document that you've written yourself. Richard Hills I co-wrote the initial 2007 complex Index to the Laws, and sure enough I had difficulty in finding the notorious errors in that document. Brian Meadows A proof read of the final draft of TFLB should be done by people who have had at most minimal, and preferably zero, involvement in producing the draft version(s). Richard Hills A proof read of my initial 2007 Index was performed by various blmlers, particularly and notably Eitan Levy, who had zero involvement in producing the draft versions. As a result the final 2008 Index had far fewer flaws. Brian Meadows Just to forestall Grattan, given his response last time I expressed the above opinion, I am in no way casting doubt on the validity of the academic qualifications held by any member of the WBFLC. Clear enough? Richard Hills Just to forestall the red herring of academic qualifications, I have zero academic qualifications in the field of indexing (although I have read the book "Indexing, The Art of"). Unclear enough? Grattan Endicott +=+ Hmmm...... I am under the impression that the Universe is disc shaped. If so, it tends to flatten the water-filled ball idea. Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens, page 23 Archbishop James Usher (1580-1656) published Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti in 1654, which suggested that the Heaven and the Earth were created in 4004 BC. One of his aides took the calculation further, and was able to announce triumphantly that the Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 BC, at exactly 9.00 a.m., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh. This too was incorrect. By almost a quarter of an hour. The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur skeletons was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. Grattan Endicott The thought of blml as a debugger would not fill the WBFLC with enthusiasm. In the past, at least, its corporate rating of blml as collectively a savant in the subject has not soared to a high level. [snip] The savant John (MadDog) Probst, March 2007 It's probably time for the obligatory Jewish rubber bridge humour. "OK, partner, that's very funny; now put down the real dummy." "Where's the hand you've just been bidding?" "30 years I play with you, you bid worse every day, but today you bid like it's tomorrow" "I know you only learnt today, was it this morning or this afternoon?" "We won't be needing these" etc. The savant Anne Jones, March 2007 I must admit I myself have one partner who always says "Thank you partner, it's a beautiful Dummy" and I know from the emphasis on 'beautiful' that the better it sounds, the worse it is. Best wishes, Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110904/a2494f0c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 6 04:14:00 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:14:00 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Very like a whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in the shape of a camel? Polonius: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or like a whale? Polonius: Very like a whale. Herman De Wael, March 2007 [snip] it strikes me as extremely odd that you would _forbid_ me to explain what my partner's bid (probably) means. [snip] Matthias Berghaus, March 2007 I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You have to explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems to remember it. Richard Hills, March 2007 It seems to me that Herman illegally wants to describe a cloud as a whale, while Matthias legally wants to describe a cloud as a cloud. Serendipitously last night, I was the victim of a cloudy auction from a long-standing partner, despite us playing the simple Dorothy Acol system (instead of my preferred complex Symmetric Relay system - system notes emailed on request). Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South You, West [Richard Hills], hold: QJ643 4 QJ85 765 The bidding proceeds: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH ---.......Pass......1C (1)....Pass 1S........Pass......2NT(2)....Pass 3C (3)....Pass......3D (4)....Pass 3S........Pass......4H (5)....Pass 4S........Pass......4NT(6)....Pass ? (1) Explicit partnership understanding shows at least 4 clubs (2) Explicit partnership understanding shows 19-20 balanced with less than 4 spades (3) Explicit partnership understanding check-back for shape (4) Explicit partnership understanding shows 4 diamonds, and also explicit partnership understanding that 3 spades are neither promised nor denied (up-the-line showing of shape by explicit partnership understanding) (5) Explicit partnership understanding that 3NT is required with less than three spades, so implicit partnership understanding that 4H shows the ace of hearts and 3 spades (6) In analogous auctions with spades directly or indirectly agreed as trumps 4NT would be, by explicit partnership understanding, old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood (with a 5C response showing 0 or 3 keycards in spades), so we therefore have an implicit partnership understanding that 4NT is also old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood in this particular auction The cloudy whale problem is, of course, that partner's decision to over-ride my signoff in 4S with a 4NT call is inconsistent with her previous limit bid of 2NT. There are two obvious possibilities: (a) a wheel fell off somewhere in the auction, so pard is desperately trying to signoff in 4NT, expecting notrumps to score ten tricks but spades to score fewer, or (b) partner has discovered another ace during the auction, so with a 23-count is catching up with Keycard Blackwood. What call do you make? What other call [if any] do you consider making? Best wishes, Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110906/ffd3065c/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 6 06:59:31 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:59:31 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Implicit partnership understanding? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Harry S Truman, dedication of the Everglades National Park, December 1947 We have to remain constantly vigilant to prevent raids by those who would selfishly exploit our common heritage for their private gain. Such raids on our natural resources are not examples of enterprise and initiative. They are attempts to take from all the people just for the benefit of a few. Steve Willner, August 2004 [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 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! :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110906/b7f3af32/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 6 07:27:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:27:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Implicit partnership understanding? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get. John (MadDog) Probst, February 2005 In a decent London game one can ask "What do I need to know?" and one of the players will tell you. No pratting around with each player explaining one bid at a time. Someone says "Dummy is 4432 with A/K and Q of trump and a stiff; I'm [whatever he is]". I've certainly done this to Frances and the response has been complete disclosure in just a few seconds. Richard Hills, February 2005 Likewise in a decent Canberra game. In addition, on occasions when I am playing the rather unusual Symmetric Relay system, I am careful to explain the rather unusual negative inferences [negative implicit partnership understandings] of why particular calls were not selected. Of course, the mere fact that Symmetric Relay is unusual sometimes gives my partnership an unfair advantage. An Aussie international once thought it might be a good idea to interpose a lead-directing double of an artificial 3D relay response with a diamond holding of KJT9. This highly ethical Aussie international avoided first enquiring with a Ruritanian Asking Bid about the 3D call, since she had been silent throughout the previously uncontested auction. Therefore, the Aussie international was unaware that her lead-directing double was demonstrably a bad idea, since pard's 3D relay response, on this occasion, showed a 3-4-5-1 shape. As I held the remaining four diamonds in my hand I redoubled, so my side consequently scored +1240. Best wishes, Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110906/6c2bbead/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 6 14:37:19 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:37:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Very like a whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E6613FF.3000608@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/09/2011 4:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) > > Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in the shape of a camel? > Polonius: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. > Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. > Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. > Hamlet: Or like a whale? > Polonius: Very like a whale. > > Herman De Wael, March 2007 > > [snip] > it strikes me as extremely odd that you would _forbid_ me to explain > what my partner's bid (probably) means. > [snip] > > Matthias Berghaus, March 2007 > > I _want_ to forbid nothing. The laws are clear on this. You have to > explain the system as agreed, not as partner seems to remember it. > > Richard Hills, March 2007 > > It seems to me that Herman illegally wants to describe a cloud as a > whale, while Matthias legally wants to describe a cloud as a cloud. > > Serendipitously last night, I was the victim of a cloudy auction from > a long-standing partner, despite us playing the simple Dorothy Acol > system (instead of my preferred complex Symmetric Relay system - > system notes emailed on request). > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > You, West [Richard Hills], hold: > > QJ643 > 4 > QJ85 > 765 > > The bidding proceeds: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > ---.......Pass......1C (1)....Pass > 1S........Pass......2NT(2)....Pass > 3C (3)....Pass......3D (4)....Pass > 3S........Pass......4H (5)....Pass > 4S........Pass......4NT(6)....Pass > ? > > (1) Explicit partnership understanding shows at least 4 clubs > (2) Explicit partnership understanding shows 19-20 balanced with less > than 4 spades > (3) Explicit partnership understanding check-back for shape > (4) Explicit partnership understanding shows 4 diamonds, and also > explicit partnership understanding that 3 spades are neither promised > nor denied (up-the-line showing of shape by explicit partnership > understanding) > (5) Explicit partnership understanding that 3NT is required with less > than three spades, so implicit partnership understanding that 4H shows > the ace of hearts and 3 spades > (6) In analogous auctions with spades directly or indirectly agreed as > trumps 4NT would be, by explicit partnership understanding, > old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood (with a 5C response showing 0 or 3 > keycards in spades), so we therefore have an implicit partnership > understanding that 4NT is also old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood in this > particular auction > > The cloudy whale problem is, of course, that partner's decision to > over-ride my signoff in 4S with a 4NT call is inconsistent with her > previous limit bid of 2NT. > > There are two obvious possibilities: > > (a) a wheel fell off somewhere in the auction, so pard is desperately > trying to signoff in 4NT, expecting notrumps to score ten tricks but > spades to score fewer, or > > (b) partner has discovered another ace during the auction, so with a > 23-count is catching up with Keycard Blackwood. > AG: I had a very similar case, long ago in Belgian junior trials (Belgians will see how long ago by the factf that there was such a thing as junior trials). I passed and hoped. However, opponents strongly disagreed because the auction looked fishy. To which the TD answered : "so what ?". They still are two of the most aggressive TD callers in this country. (a) was the answer, and passing was right. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110906/a06dc498/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 6 14:42:48 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:42:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Implicit partnership understanding? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E661548.8010205@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/09/2011 6:59, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Harry S Truman, dedication of the Everglades National Park, December 1947 > > We have to remain constantly vigilant to prevent raids by those who > would selfishly exploit our common heritage for their private gain. > Such raids on our natural resources are not examples of enterprise and > initiative. They are attempts to take from all the people just for the > benefit of a few. > > Steve Willner, August 2004 > > [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 > > 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! > AG : anyway, playing 16-18 NT, I would never open 1NT on AKJx-Axx-xx-AKTx, which is a " balanced hand within range". That's what's wrong with looking for possible implicit agreements : bridge implications are seldom two-way, excpet in rigid relay or asking sequences. If I open 1NT, I hold a balanced 16-18, but the reciprocal is false. Another example : many pairs use one specific (possibly two-way) game-force opening, and most of them still open one-bids one some hands that will make game without any help. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110906/85728b96/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Sep 6 14:58:24 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:58:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Implicit partnership understanding? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E661548.8010205@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E661548.8010205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E6618F0.2070002@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/09/2011 14:42, Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Le 6/09/2011 6:59, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >> Harry S Truman, dedication of the Everglades National Park, December 1947 >> >> We have to remain constantly vigilant to prevent raids by those who >> would selfishly exploit our common heritage for their private gain. >> Such raids on our natural resources are not examples of enterprise >> and initiative. They are attempts to take from all the people just >> for the benefit of a few. >> >> Steve Willner, August 2004 >> >> [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 >> >> 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! >> > > AG : anyway, playing 16-18 NT, I would never open 1NT on > AKJx-Axx-xx-AKTx, which is a " balanced hand within range". Sorry, make it AKJx - xx - Axx - KQTx. > That's what's wrong with looking for possible implicit agreements : > bridge implications are seldom two-way, excpet in rigid relay or > asking sequences. > > If I open 1NT, I hold a balanced 16-18, but the reciprocal is false. > > Another example : many pairs use one specific (possibly two-way) > game-force opening, and most of them still open one-bids one some > hands that will make game without any help. > > > Best regards > > Alain > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110906/c66a0ae3/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 6 23:44:48 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:44:48 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Very like a whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E6613FF.3000608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-boggingly big it is. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space ... Richard Hills [snip] The cloudy whale problem is, of course, that partner's decision to over-ride my signoff in 4S with a 4NT call is inconsistent with her previous limit bid of 2NT. There are two obvious possibilities: (a) a wheel fell off somewhere in the auction, so pard is desperately trying to signoff in 4NT, expecting notrumps to score ten tricks but spades to score fewer, or (b) partner has discovered another ace during the auction, so with a 23-count is catching up with Keycard Blackwood. What call do you make? What other call [if any] do you consider making? Alain Gottcheiner AG: I had a very similar case, long ago in Belgian junior trials (Belgians will see how long ago by the fact that there was such a thing as junior trials). I passed and hoped. However, opponents strongly disagreed because the auction looked fishy. To which the TD answered : "so what ?". They still are two of the most aggressive TD callers in this country. (a) was the answer, and passing was right. Richard Hills This thread's forthcoming questions are big. Really big. You may think it is a long way down the road to the Belgian junior trials (or to the 1987, 1988 and 1989 Aussie Interstate Youth Teams, where five first-rate team-mates carried yours truly to three consecutive victories), but that is just peanuts compared to this thread. So while many years ago (a) was the answer that Alain chose, and (a) also happened to be the correct answer at that time, one of the questions of this vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big thread is does Alain (and/or other blmlers) consider (b) to be a logical alternative? Best wishes, Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110906/2115aced/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 7 07:59:45 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:59:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Very like a whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833 - 1911), dissenting judgement in Plessy versus Ferguson (1896) [snip] Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. [snip] Imps (Butler Pairs) Dlr: North Vul: North-South ................A972 ................T7652 ................92 ................98 QJ643.........................5 4.............................AJ83 QJ85..........................AK6 765...........................AKJ32 ................KT8 ................KQ9 ................T743 ................QT4 The bidding [and explanations] proceeded: WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH Richard.............Dorothy...Mad George(1) ---.......Pass......1C (2)....Pass 1S........Pass......2NT(3)....Pass 3C (4)....Pass......3D (5)....Pass 3S (6)....Pass......4H (7)....Pass 4S (8)....Pass......4NT(9)....Pass(10) ? (1) At one time four different experts named George played at the Canberra Bridge Club. They were distinguished as Bad George (Dorothy's recently deceased husband), Sad George, Glad George and Mad George. (2) Explicit partnership agreement shows at least 4 clubs. (3) Explicit partnership agreement shows 19-20 balanced with less than 4 spades. (4) Explicit partnership agreement check-back for shape. But alerted and explained by Dorothy (upon request of Mad George) as Puppet Stayman. Following the requirements of [1997] Law 75D2 [now the 2007 Law 20F5(a)], I maintained my usual vacant expression. (5) Explicit partnership agreement shows 4 diamonds, and also explicit partnership agreement that 3 spades are neither promised nor denied (up-the-line showing of shape by explicit partnership agreement). Due to the misinterpretation of 3C as Puppet Stayman, partner fondly thought she was showing an unspecified 4-card major. I alerted 3D because of our up-the-line agreement. Mad George (and pard) thought I was alerting due to 3D being a Puppet Stayman response, so Mad George did not bother enquiring about this call. (6) Natural, 5 spades, choice of contracts between NT and spades. Alerted and explained by Dorothy (upon request of Mad George) as showing 4 hearts and denying 4 spades. (7) Explicit partnership agreement that 3NT is required with less than three spades, so implicit partnership agreement that 4H shows the ace of hearts and 3 spades. Not alerted, due to the ABF Alert Regulation defining calls above 3NT as "self-alerting". (8) Up to this point partner has not received any UI to awaken her to a wheel falling off. But my somewhat unusual 4S was AI which caused her to wake up. She initially thought that I might have forgotten Puppet Stayman but, on re-examining the bidding box cards, realised to her horror that she was the one who had gotten a bog-standard checkback sequence wrong. She therefore pressed the eject button with 4NT, in a desperate hope that I would interpret 4NT as a signoff. (9) In analogous auctions with spades directly or indirectly agreed as trumps 4NT would be, by explicit partnership agreement, old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood (with a 5C response showing 0 or 3 keycards in spades), so we therefore have an implicit partnership agreement that 4NT is also old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood in this particular auction. (10) My expert RHO is known as Mad George partly because he has a Mad habit of Spanish Inquisition interrogation of opponents during the auction (a Mad habit which is self-defeating when bunny opponents who do not have a partnership understanding thereby create one during the auction via the classic reply, "I'm taking it as ... "). So Mad George asked me during the auction about the meaning of partner's 4NT bid. What explanation should I have given? What explanation did I give? I had UI that a wheel had fallen off, thus UI that 4NT was intended by Dorothy as a natural signoff (option A). But our implicit partnership understanding was that 4NT was Keycard Blackwood (option B). So at the table I explained to Mad George that 4NT was Keycard Blackwood, in accordance with the Dorothy-Richard pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding. Herman De Wael, March 2007 [snip] And the director will judge that A was our agreement all along. I really don't see why you think I'm the bad guy for giving a clear and unequivocal answer. Richard Hills, March 2007 It is no excuse for an illegal answer [of option A] to be clear and unequivocal. Nor is it any excuse to give an illegal answer on the grounds that the director might subsequently misjudge the facts. Richard Hills, September 2011 I was required by the 1997 Lawbook (and would have been required by the 2007 Lawbook) to describe Dorothy's 4NT as systemically Keycard Blackwood. But in 2011 Alain Gottcheiner's post causes me to wonder about an interesting point. Is it possible that violating system -- in this case passing Keycard Blackwood -- can be the only logical alternative? At the table I thought that responding to Keycard Blackwood was a logical alternative for my quintessentially Ivory Tower peers (although perhaps obeying system was not a logical alternative for peers of the quintessentially practical rubber bridge player Tim West-Meads). Since I had received UI from Dorothy that 4NT was natural, my only legal call was to respond 5C (0 or 3 keycards) to Keycard Blackwood in spades. And, of course, partner passed my 5C response to "Blackwood". My virtue was rewarded, since 5C is the only East-West game which makes against any defence. :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills Specialist Recruitment Team, Recruitment Section Aqua 5, w/s W568, ph 6223 8453 DIAC Social Club movie ticket coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110907/419a62f7/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 7 14:21:55 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:21:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Very like a whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E6761E3.2000700@ulb.ac.be> Le 6/09/2011 23:44, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: > > Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely > mind-boggingly big it is. You may think it's a long way down the road > to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space ... > > Richard Hills > > [snip] > The cloudy whale problem is, of course, that partner's decision to > over-ride my signoff in 4S with a 4NT call is inconsistent with her > previous limit bid of 2NT. > > There are two obvious possibilities: > > (a) a wheel fell off somewhere in the auction, so pard is desperately > trying to signoff in 4NT, expecting notrumps to score ten tricks but > spades to score fewer, or > > (b) partner has discovered another ace during the auction, so with a > 23-count is catching up with Keycard Blackwood. > > What call do you make? > What other call [if any] do you consider making? > > Alain Gottcheiner > > AG: I had a very similar case, long ago in Belgian junior trials > (Belgians will see how long ago by the fact that there was such a > thing as junior trials). I passed and hoped. However, opponents > strongly disagreed because the auction looked fishy. To which the TD > answered : "so what ?". They still are two of the most aggressive TD > callers in this country. > (a) was the answer, and passing was right. > > Richard Hills > > This thread's forthcoming questions are big. Really big. You may think > it is a long way down the road to the Belgian junior trials (or to the > 1987, 1988 and 1989 Aussie Interstate Youth Teams, where five > first-rate team-mates carried yours truly to three consecutive > victories), but that is just peanuts compared to this thread. > > So while many years ago (a) was the answer that Alain chose, and (a) > also happened to be the correct answer at that time, one of the > questions of this vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big thread is does > Alain (and/or other blmlers) consider (b) to be a logical alternative? > AG : yes, 5D is a logical alternative, in the known fi, if 4NT isn't BW. However, I'm afraid that partner could read it as showing one Ace, adding to the damage. And of course 5C is a logical alternative if one understands 4NT as BW, but in my style "no BW" is the default value in uncontested, undiscussed auctions. And this one surely is undiscussed. In scenario (b), I'd expect partner to bid 5S. I think that this is more a matter of partnership preservation. My style, when it becomes obvious that a wheel has come off, is to stop in the first possible non-totally-unsafe place, before they realize what happens and before they start doubling. YMMV. But in this case, even 23 HCP in partne's hand don't make slam good, so I'm fairly happy with my pass. It was different in the case I mentioned, because I held a 10-count. In case it matters, the bidding in that case was : 1D 1S 2NT 3C 3D (1) 4S (2) 4NT (3) (1) neither 4H nor 3S (2) signoff implying that I would have had at least mild ambitions had partner shown a spade raise (3) non-systemic, but with many top tricks and two small spades, partner considered that 4NT would be better. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110907/726b273e/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 7 14:48:49 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:48:49 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Very like a whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E676831.5040605@ulb.ac.be> Le 7/09/2011 7:59, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833 - 1911), > dissenting judgement in Plessy versus Ferguson (1896) > > [snip] > Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates > classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are > equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. > [snip] > > Imps (Butler Pairs) > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > ................A972 > ................T7652 > ................92 > ................98 > QJ643.........................5 > 4.............................AJ83 > QJ85..........................AK6 > 765...........................AKJ32 > ................KT8 > ................KQ9 > ................T743 > ................QT4 > > The bidding [and explanations] proceeded: > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > Richard.............Dorothy...Mad George(1) > ---.......Pass......1C (2)....Pass > 1S........Pass......2NT(3)....Pass > 3C (4)....Pass......3D (5)....Pass > 3S (6)....Pass......4H (7)....Pass > 4S (8)....Pass......4NT(9)....Pass(10) > ? > > (1) At one time four different experts named George played at the > Canberra Bridge Club. They were distinguished as Bad George (Dorothy's > recently deceased husband), Sad George, Glad George and Mad George. > (2) Explicit partnership agreement shows at least 4 clubs. > (3) Explicit partnership agreement shows 19-20 balanced with less than > 4 spades. > (4) Explicit partnership agreement check-back for shape. But alerted > and explained by Dorothy (upon request of Mad George) as Puppet > Stayman. Following the requirements of [1997] Law 75D2 [now the 2007 > Law 20F5(a)], I maintained my usual vacant expression. > (5) Explicit partnership agreement shows 4 diamonds, and also explicit > partnership agreement that 3 spades are neither promised nor denied > (up-the-line showing of shape by explicit partnership agreement). Due > to the misinterpretation of 3C as Puppet Stayman, partner fondly > thought she was showing an unspecified 4-card major. I alerted 3D > because of our up-the-line agreement. Mad George (and pard) thought I > was alerting due to 3D being a Puppet Stayman response, so Mad George > did not bother enquiring about this call. > (6) Natural, 5 spades, choice of contracts between NT and spades. > Alerted and explained by Dorothy (upon request of Mad George) as > showing 4 hearts and denying 4 spades. > (7) Explicit partnership agreement that 3NT is required with less than > three spades, so implicit partnership agreement that 4H shows the ace > of hearts and 3 spades. Not alerted, due to the ABF Alert Regulation > defining calls above 3NT as "self-alerting". > (8) Up to this point partner has not received any UI to awaken her to > a wheel falling off. But my somewhat unusual 4S was AI which caused > her to wake up. She initially thought that I might have forgotten > Puppet Stayman but, on re-examining the bidding box cards, realised to > her horror that she was the one who had gotten a bog-standard > checkback sequence wrong. She therefore pressed the eject button with > 4NT, in a desperate hope that I would interpret 4NT as a signoff. > (9) In analogous auctions with spades directly or indirectly agreed as > trumps 4NT would be, by explicit partnership agreement, old-fashioned > Keycard Blackwood (with a 5C response showing 0 or 3 keycards in > spades), so we therefore have an implicit partnership agreement that > 4NT is also old-fashioned Keycard Blackwood in this particular auction. > (10) My expert RHO is known as Mad George partly because he has a Mad > habit of Spanish Inquisition interrogation of opponents during the > auction (a Mad habit which is self-defeating when bunny opponents who > do not have a partnership understanding thereby create one during the > auction via the classic reply, "I'm taking it as ... "). So Mad George > asked me during the auction about the meaning of partner's 4NT bid. > > What explanation should I have given? > The question is : do generic agreements extend to impossible sequences ? I answer to the negative. So, answering "this auction is impossible" is conform to your system. Of course, it transmits huge UI, but if you intend to pass, its effect will be limited. (don't ask me what I think of the 2NT bid in the first place. The answer could be rather rude. And that's not because of the singleton) > > > > I was required by the 1997 Lawbook (and would have been required by > the 2007 Lawbook) to describe Dorothy's 4NT as systemically Keycard > Blackwood. But in 2011 Alain Gottcheiner's post causes me to wonder > about an interesting point. Is it possible that violating system -- in > this case passing Keycard Blackwood -- can be the only logical > alternative? > I would say that it is not; It is the logical bid absent UI, but you've got a huge chunk of UI. So, while passing is better (especially to avoir partner making further use of your UI), I wouldn't allow it in this case. I think that answering "this bid is impossible" (which is true) and responding 5C leaves partner unknowing of your intentions (thereby avoiding transmitting more UI), therefore is perfectly legal. (especially if for some reason she intended to blackwood) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110907/f2e63bb6/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 8 02:43:07 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:43:07 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Very like a whale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E676831.5040605@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: The White Queen "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Alain Gottcheiner The question is : do generic agreements extend to impossible sequences ? I answer to the negative. So, answering "this auction is impossible" is conform to your system. [snip] Richard Hills No, only answering "Keycard Blackwood is the system meaning" conforms to your Keycard Blackwood system. I can believe six impossible systemic things before breakfast. Q: Why is pard bidding an impossibly optimistic Keycard Blackwood before breakfast? The six impossible but believable answers -> A1: Pard's optimistic Keycard Blackwood is intended as systemic, because pard missorted her cards (e.g. pard initially thought that she held four clubs and three spades, but she actually holds a singleton club and six spades). A2: Pard's optimistic Keycard Blackwood is intended as systemic, because pard found another ace. A3: Pard's optimistic Keycard Blackwood is intended as systemic, because pard's hand is improved by the auction. A4: Pard's optimistic Keycard Blackwood is intended as systemic, because pard had earlier chosen a pessimistic 1C opening bid instead of an optimistic game-forcing 2C opening bid. A5: Pard's optimistic Keycard Blackwood is intended as systemic, because pard is manically optimistic (a credible possibility should I be East). A6: Pard's optimistic Keycard Blackwood is intended as systemic, because pard is not making an "optimistic" call. That is, pard did not forget the earlier system agreements, instead you did. Best wishes, Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110908/d49f9a50/attachment-0001.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Wed Sep 14 19:39:41 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:39:41 -0700 Subject: [BLML] Test In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E70E6DD.9000406@iinet.net.au> Ping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110914/a6ea4963/attachment.html From mal.clark at iinet.net.au Wed Sep 14 04:42:07 2011 From: mal.clark at iinet.net.au (Mal Clark) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:42:07 +0800 Subject: [BLML] Test In-Reply-To: <4E70E6DD.9000406@iinet.net.au> References: <4E70E6DD.9000406@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: <3E12B34CE08A4FC9806E148873198565@OWNER> pong _____ From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of bill kemp Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 1:40 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Test Ping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110914/797d275a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 15 01:40:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:40:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Test [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3E12B34CE08A4FC9806E148873198565@OWNER> Message-ID: Godfrey Harold Hardy (1877 - 1947), English mathematician Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics. The 2005 Palmer Report (describing a 2005(1) ugly bureaucracy), page 169: [very big snip] There is a management attitude that does not question the instructions and processes and seems to attach little value to explaining to staff the operating context and the purpose of the instructions and processes. The attitude emphasises process and is silent on outcomes. This is dangerous in a volatile portfolio. Rigorous rules and processes often create a false sense of security. In the case of Cornelia Rau's incarceration in prison for six months, it would be hard to fault the relevant Migration Series Instruction and the guidance it provides. The failure occurred because the requirements of MSI 244 were not adhered to and because there was no effective management oversight and no clear triggers for executive intervention. It is essential that processes and instructions be accurate and provide guidance to operational staff trying to do their job. Some of the MSIs seem to be unnecessarily complex, or written by lawyers for lawyers, and are difficult to understand. Some have not been updated for several years. [very big snip] Richard Hills (personal opinion), 15th July 2005 The quoted third paragraph of the Palmer Report should perhaps be read by the majority of the WBF Laws Committee. Try replacing the word "MSIs" with the word "Laws". Grattan Endicott (personal opinion), 15th July 2005 +=+ I should pass no direct comment upon this. My personal bottom line is that the laws should not brook of alternative interpretations, as for example has happened with the 1997 Laws in some areas, between the interpretation in the ACBL and that in the EBL for example. If practices are to differ it should be authorized by options in the Laws. Nor should it be possible for informed persons to argue the meaning of a law, as has happened here on blml from time to time. The wording should be unarguable and not call for interpretations by the WBFLC or anyone. It is this characteristic of the 1997 Laws that has caused me to become more and more disenchanted with them. I believe the position has come about largely because the 1997 Laws are the outcome of a series of patching exercises and I have wanted a root and branch process, as being in my opinion much overdue. Still, it remains to be seen how we make out in this respect with the Code now in preparation by the WBF. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Kind regards Richard Hills (1) The bureaucracy concerned is now much more beautiful in 2011. But some might argue that the bureaucracy's political masters are now much more ugly in 2011 than they were in 2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110914/281dd173/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 16 06:48:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:48:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] ...implicitly through mutual experience... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Jeff Rubens, The Bridge World, March 1987, pages 4-5: I am playing in the final of a New York Regional knockout. Very serious business. Serious players. Serious directors. Serious kibitzers. We sit down to shuffle for the first quarter. A serious kibitzer asks if he may examine my convention card. Sure! Card has only a moderate amount to read. Natural and standard. Notrumps are strong. Two-bids are weak. Four-card majors. Most jumps are forcing. Most doubles are for penalties. High cards encourage. Bridge is a simple game. First quarter gets played. Back for the second quarter. Plot thickens. New opponents. New partner. Same kibitzer. Asks for the convention card, almost as an afterthought. Surprise! New card not crowded, but more to read than first card. Natural but nonstandard. Notrumps are weak. Two-bids are strong(!). Five-card majors. Most jumps are nonforcing. Most doubles are for takeout. Low cards encourage. Can this be the same simple game we were playing in the first quarter? Second quarter gets played. Teammates still playing last board. Must wait. Kibitzer expresses amazement I can switch so easily among widely diverse methods, but has greatly overestimated the difficulty. Conversation ensues: J.R.: "It's true I have the advantage of using the different methods fairly regularly, but that isn't what makes it easy to use them both." K.: "I don't see how you can do it without studying all the time. From one to the other, everything is upside-down. You must have a fantastic memory." J.R.: "Not so. You just hit the secret yourself. *Everything* is upside-down, or at least everything likely ever to matter. Each partner has preferred methods that match a personal style, that incorporate certain principles. Neither has merely selected at a whim from a laundry list of possible methods. On top of making each method, individually, not too difficult to remember, the internal consistency allows reliable deductions about new, undiscussed sequences. Do you remember that long sequence we just had to reach the six clubs that needed a three-two trump break? You could see from my hand that I must have been confident partner would take four clubs as forcing, but we've never had that or any analogous sequence. How would you have bid that hand if it had been dealt in the first quarter?" K.: "I guess I would have had to jump in clubs on an earlier round." J.R.: "Exactly. So, if your methods are based on a few general ideas rather than a list of specific agreements, you can remember them relatively easily - it's like having mnemonics - and you can sometimes extend them in emergencies." Teammates arrive. Story ends. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110916/f0bc82bd/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Sep 17 21:09:04 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:09:04 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" Message-ID: I had another "misleading UI" auction to rule on. I have decided that if something is incorrect, it is not information. In any case, the best ruling is that the opponents get no protection for mistaken UI auctions. Of course, there was no way to justify my ruling. I have the principle that I should be able to justify my rulings. So I gave a split score. If someone isn't happy with this, fix the laws. Anyway, you hold Kx xx J10x AKQxxx You open 1C and get this auction: 1C 2C 3D 3H ? I am guessing that the logical alternatives are to bid 4C or 4D. To me, both are attractive. (I think a 3S bid is outside the capabilities of these players.) The one person I asked choose a bid of 4D. Partner has to have at least a 5 card diamond suit, and so you have at least a 5-3 diamond fit with heart ruffs possibly in the short hand. Plus good diamond fillers. In reality, the player who bid 3D said something to the effect of "oh oh". This suggests strongly that she made a mistake, and -- not as strongly -- that she might not have 5 diamonds. Now the 4C call is more attractive. The player in fact bid 4C. This is *not* necessarily using UI. It could have been her real choice without the UI. (Though the laws do not mention it, directors have a serious concern when a player selects a call suggested by the UI when the call is not a logical alternative.) The other possibility is that the player used the UI. But if the UI is wrong, then the player does not benefit from using the UI. In fact, the player is hurt by using the UI. So there is no need to protect the opponents. In fact, the 3D bidder had a fine diamond suit -- AKxxx. (Or maybe AK9xx) So, if 4D was the best bid, then you would expect that 5D was a better contract than 5C. For fluky reasons, 5C was the better contract. Partner had: AQxx xx AKxxx J10 If the diamond finesse is onside, the contracts are the same. If partner doesn't have the spade queen they are the same. If partner has the queen of diamonds instead of the king, they are the same. If partner doesn't have the jack of clubs and clubs don't break, the diamond contract might have even been better. But none of those happened, and the 5C contract allowed pitching a losing diamond on the spades. So, if I protect the opponents, I am not protecting them against the use of UI. I am protecting them against the fickle finger of fate. What is the point of that? And this will always be the case for mistaken UI auctions -- no reason to protect, potentially serious problems with protecting. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Sep 17 23:03:44 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:03:44 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E750B30.3060507@nhcc.net> On 9/17/2011 3:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > I have decided that if something is incorrect, it is > not information. The Laws say something different. They ask whether the "information" suggest a call or play, not whether it's correct or not. > Of course, there was no way to justify my ruling. So it would seem. > The player in fact bid 4C. This is *not* necessarily using UI. It could > have been her real choice without the UI. Once you've decided that 4C and 4D are LAs and 4C is suggested over 4D, then 4C is illegal. If an illegal call causes damage, you adjust. "I was always going to bid 4C" is irrelevant. > (Though the > laws do not mention it, directors have a serious concern when a player > selects a call suggested by the UI when the call is not a logical > alternative.) See Law 73C. > But if the UI is > wrong, then the player does not benefit from using the UI. See the definition of "damage" in L12B1. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Sep 18 03:30:56 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:30:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" In-Reply-To: <4E750B30.3060507@nhcc.net> References: <4E750B30.3060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:03:44 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > On 9/17/2011 3:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I have decided that if something is incorrect, it is >> not information. > > The Laws say something different. They ask whether the "information" > suggest a call or play, not whether it's correct or not. > >> Of course, there was no way to justify my ruling. > > So it would seem. > >> The player in fact bid 4C. This is *not* necessarily using UI. It could >> have been her real choice without the UI. > > Once you've decided that 4C and 4D are LAs and 4C is suggested over 4D, > then 4C is illegal. If an illegal call causes damage, you adjust. "I > was always going to bid 4C" is irrelevant. > >> (Though the >> laws do not mention it, directors have a serious concern when a player >> selects a call suggested by the UI when the call is not a logical >> alternative.) > > See Law 73C. > >> But if the UI is >> wrong, then the player does not benefit from using the UI. > > See the definition of "damage" in L12B1. Of course, Steve. Aren't you just saying the obvious? You are just doing what the laws say, a position even Grattan has abandoned. If the laws said that praying was illegal, would you give procedural penalties or retifications for praying? The worst problem here is this. Your partner fails to announce your transfer. You assume he just forgot. He did just forget. You have a complicated auction leading to a small slam that makes. Do you now want the director to examine every bid you made to see if the opponents deserve rectification for your use of UI? And, second problem, does any director really do this? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 19 01:36:29 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:36:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick [snip] If the laws said that praying was illegal, would you give procedural penalties or rectifications for praying? [snip] The Laws of Atheist Duplicate Bridge 2011 Law 1 - No praying. Law 2 - No player is to maltreat the Director in any way whatsoever - if there's anybody watching. Law 3 - No praying. Law 4 - I don't want to catch anyone not drinking at the table after the session starts. Law 5 - No praying. Law 6 - There is NO Law 6. Law 7 - No praying. [with apologies to Monty Python's Bruces] 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/20110918/c41a45a3/attachment.html From diggadog at iinet.net.au Mon Sep 19 04:29:59 2011 From: diggadog at iinet.net.au (bill kemp) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:29:59 +0800 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" In-Reply-To: References: <4E750B30.3060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E76A927.5000600@iinet.net.au> "LAW 81 - THE DIRECTOR A. (Snip) B. (snip) 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." "LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. Observance of Laws Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." It appears that Directors and players are required to follow the Laws of duplicate bridge. the same applies to other mainstream games and sports. 20+ kilograms ago, when i was on a squash referee's course we were told that while the referee was always right, it helped to know the rules. Sorry I missed the post where Grattan abandoned the laws bill 0n 9/18/2011 9:30 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:03:44 -0400, Steve Willner + 9/17/2011 3:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >>> I have decided that if something is incorrect, it is >>> not information. >> The Laws say something different. They ask whether the "information" >> suggest a call or play, not whether it's correct or not. >> >>> Of course, there was no way to justify my ruling. >> So it would seem. >> >>> The player in fact bid 4C. This is *not* necessarily using UI. It could >>> have been her real choice without the UI. >> Once you've decided that 4C and 4D are LAs and 4C is suggested over 4D, >> then 4C is illegal. If an illegal call causes damage, you adjust. "I >> was always going to bid 4C" is irrelevant. >> >>> (Though the >>> laws do not mention it, directors have a serious concern when a player >>> selects a call suggested by the UI when the call is not a logical >>> alternative.) >> See Law 73C. >> >>> But if the UI is >>> wrong, then the player does not benefit from using the UI. >> See the definition of "damage" in L12B1. > Of course, Steve. Aren't you just saying the obvious? You are just doing > what the laws say, a position even Grattan has abandoned. If the laws said > that praying was illegal, would you give procedural penalties or > retifications for praying? > > The worst problem here is this. Your partner fails to announce your > transfer. You assume he just forgot. He did just forget. You have a > complicated auction leading to a small slam that makes. Do you now want > the director to examine every bid you made to see if the opponents deserve > rectification for your use of UI? > > And, second problem, does any director really do this? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Sep 19 08:56:52 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:56:52 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E76A927.5000600@iinet.net.au> Message-ID: Law 81B2 The Director applies, ***and is bound by***, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Bill Kemp [snip] It appears that Directors and players are required to follow the Laws of duplicate bridge. the same applies to other mainstream games and sports. 20+ kilograms ago, when i was on a squash referee's course we were told that while the referee was always right, it helped to know the rules. Richard Hills The WBF Laws Committee (with endorsement from the WBF Executive) has the ultimate power to collectively issue official interpretations of the rules of Duplicate Bridge. In the interim before a WBF LC interpretation a Director is empowered by Law 81C2 to issue a temporary interpretation of a sloppily drafted rule. But Law 81B2 means that neither the WBF LC nor a TD are permitted to decide that "black" equals "white". Only a collective decision of the WBF Drafting Committee (with endorsement from the WBF Executive) has the power to _change the meaning_ of the rules of Duplicate Bridge, as was done when the Drafting Committee rewrote a 2007 rule to create the 2008 Law 27 -- Insufficient Bid. Robert Frick [snip] Aren't you just saying the obvious? You are just doing what the laws say, a position even Grattan has abandoned. [snip] Bill Kemp Sorry I missed the post where Grattan abandoned the laws Richard Hills The fact that Grattan Endicott has noted that the rules of our game are partially sloppily drafted, thus the language of the rules could desirably be rewritten, cannot in my opinion be reasonably defined as "abandoning" the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Kind regards Richard Hills Grattan Endicott, 22nd August 2011, non-official interpretation (not abandonment) of sloppy rules +=+ Definitions: 'Call': any bid, double, redouble, or pass. Index: 'Call for card': see 'card' Law 45 states clearly that declarer names the card. 45C4 specifies 'names or otherwise designates'. Law 46 introduces the phrase 'call of a card from dummy' and in Law 46A specifies how a card is to be 'designated' in 'calling a card to be played from dummy'. Law 46B deals with errors made in designating a card to be played from dummy. I concede that the Drafting Committee was sloppy in repeating the 1997 text without the appropriate substitution of 'designation' for 'call' in the first line of 46B and, I would suggest desirably, the substitution of 'says' for 'calls' where the latter is to be found subsequently in Law 46. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110919/9292855c/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 19 13:51:41 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:51:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" In-Reply-To: <4E750B30.3060507@nhcc.net> References: <4E750B30.3060507@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4E772CCD.4090006@ulb.ac.be> Le 17/09/2011 23:03, Steve Willner a ?crit : > On 9/17/2011 3:09 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> I have decided that if something is incorrect, it is >> not information. > The Laws say something different. They ask whether the "information" > suggest a call or play, not whether it's correct or not. > >> Of course, there was no way to justify my ruling. > So it would seem. > >> The player in fact bid 4C. This is *not* necessarily using UI. It could >> have been her real choice without the UI. > Once you've decided that 4C and 4D are LAs and 4C is suggested over 4D, > then 4C is illegal. AG : this is indded what the laws say. This means that there might be procedural penalties (probably only medium harsh at this level) and possibly score adjustment. But only if there is UI. > If an illegal call causes damage, you adjust. "I > was always going to bid 4C" is irrelevant. > >> (Though the >> laws do not mention it, directors have a serious concern when a player >> selects a call suggested by the UI when the call is not a logical >> alternative.) > See Law 73C. > >> But if the UI is >> wrong, then the player does not benefit from using the UI. > See the definition of "damage" in L12B1. > AG : it seems that this is what results from a strict interpretation of the law. But it strikes some of us as very strange that non-existent UI can cause any damage. As Zenon would have put it, what doesn't exist can't have any effects. Partner's nonspecific reaction can have a wide range of reasons. For example, he may have preempted 3D over RHO's 2C opening, then seen that you opened and reacted. This would suggest bidding 5D over bidding 4C. Or, rather probable indeed, it could have been "oops, I forgot the stop card". Or "oops, I could have bid 2D". Why on Earth should it be "oops, I don't hold diamonds" ??? To take an extreme case : the waiter pours coffee on partner's sleeve, and he reacts. Doest it affect your right to bid 4C ? Many cases of "incorrect UI" can be handled that way. One example I recall is the following : 2H 3C ....pass pass 3D etc. 2H shows a sound opening with hearts, but less than strong-club values. Responder held Qxxxx - x - Jxxx - xxx. Did opener use any UI ? (assuming that the reopening wasn't automatic, and I'd say it wasn't, with only 2641 pattern) I asked responder why he had taken a long time with such a hand ; he answered that he had misseen the bidding, thought partner opened 1H and took the mandatory pause over the "skip bid". I decided to believe him. No UI about his hand, no penalty. To cut it short, you should use the well-known "balance of probabilities" principle in order to decide whether UI was indeed transmitted. If there isn't UI, or if which UI it could be is impossible to guess, then there could be no use of UI. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 19 13:53:32 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:53:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E772D3C.9070809@ulb.ac.be> Le 19/09/2011 1:36, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Robert Frick > > [snip] > If the laws said that praying was illegal, would you give procedural > penalties or rectifications for praying? > [snip] > > The Laws of Atheist Duplicate Bridge 2011 > > Law 1 - No praying. > Law 2 - No player is to maltreat the Director in any way whatsoever - > if there's anybody watching. > Law 3 - No praying. > Law 4 - I don't want to catch anyone not drinking at the table after > the session starts. > Law 5 - No praying. > Law 6 - There is NO Law 6. > Law 7 - No praying. > > [with apologies to Monty Python's Bruces] > AG : no need for that. They'd appreciate your version. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110919/adfd312d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 20 00:20:41 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:20:41 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E772CCD.4090006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Frodo Baggins Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes. Alain Gottcheiner [snip] To take an extreme case : the waiter pours coffee on partner's sleeve, and he reacts. Does it affect your right to bid 4C ? [snip] Richard Hills No and Yes. If partner's reaction is to say "Ouch!", then as Director I would rule that hot coffee is demonstrably suggested. If partner's reaction is to say "I hold AKQxxx in clubs", then as Director I would rule that 4C is demonstrably suggested. Alain Gottcheiner [snip] I asked responder why he had taken a long time with such a hand ; he answered that he had mis-seen the bidding, thought partner opened 1H and took the mandatory pause over the "skip bid". I decided to believe him. No UI about his hand, no penalty. [snip] Richard Hills No and No. The thoughts of the player creating the extraneous information are irrelevant to a Law 16B1(a) ruling. It is the thoughts of that player's partner, the one who receives the extraneous information, which determines what "could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". Kind regards Richard Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110919/864651d6/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 20 02:47:17 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:47:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:20:41 -0400, wrote: > > Frodo Baggins > > Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes. > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > To take an extreme case : the waiter pours coffee on partner's sleeve, > and > he reacts. Does it affect your right to bid 4C ? > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > No and Yes. > > If partner's reaction is to say "Ouch!", then as Director I would rule > that > hot coffee is demonstrably suggested. > If partner's reaction is to say "I hold AKQxxx in clubs", then as > Director > I would rule that 4C is demonstrably suggested. > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > I asked responder why he had taken a long time with such a hand ; he > answered that he had mis-seen the bidding, thought partner opened 1H and > took the mandatory pause over the "skip bid". I decided to believe him. > No UI about his hand, no penalty. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > No and No. > > The thoughts of the player creating the extraneous information are > irrelevant to a Law 16B1(a) ruling. It is the thoughts of that player's > partner, the one who receives the extraneous information, which > determines > what "could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous > information". Right, but don't the thoughts determine whether or not it is information? Or what it is information about? If the information is "I didn't realize it was my bid", then that information does not suggest a call or play. I think it is fairly easy to interpret the laws this way. It seems like a reasonably good interpretation too. (Not to mention the problem of deciding whether or not to follow laws that seem to be wrong.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 20 02:50:15 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 20:50:15 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Void call misleads defender Message-ID: I just had the exact same situation I mentioned about last month! I was thinking they were uncommon. Declarer called for the 4 of spades, defender played the queen of spades before dummy played, and then they sorted out the problem that the 4 of spades wasn't in dummy and she really wanted the 4 of hearts. I ruled opposite of advice from the ACBL and let him put the queen of spades back in his hand. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 20 03:39:59 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:39:59 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner [snip] I asked responder why he had taken a long time with such a hand ; he answered that he had mis-seen the bidding, thought partner opened 1H and took the mandatory pause over the "skip bid". I decided to believe him. No UI about his hand, no penalty. [snip] Richard Hills No and No. Thomas Hood (1799 - 1845) No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds, -- November! Richard Hills The thoughts of the player creating the extraneous information are irrelevant to a Law 16B1(a) ruling. It is the thoughts of that player's partner, the one who receives the extraneous information, which determines what "could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". Robert Frick Right, but don't the thoughts determine whether or not it is information? Or what it is information about? If the information is "I didn't realize it was my bid", then that information does not suggest a call or play. [snip] Richard Hills In my opinion both Alain and Robert are missing the point. It is the break in tempo by a player which is extraneous information to the player's partner. A subsequent self-serving excuse by the player for the tempo break does not necessarily cancel the extraneous information to the player's partner. A post facto excuse, after the deal is finished, by a player of taking a mandatory pause due to a non-existent "skip bid" is definitely irrelevant to the Law 16B1(a) legality of the player's partner's actions during the auction and play. (Although it may be relevant to a possible Law 73F deception ruling.) More complicated is the scenario of dealer pausing a long time before passing, which demonstrably suggested that dealer wondered whether a sexy 11 hcp (a sexy 9 hcp if I was dealer) was worth opening the bidding. If dealer said contemporaneously with the pass, "Sorry, I was thinking about the Vienna Coup on the previous board", then as Director I would rule that the initial extraneous information was not necessarily cancelled out by the further extraneous information -- especially if there was not any possibility of a Vienna Coup on the previous board. 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/20110920/51cf6bea/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 20 05:12:33 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:12:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:39:59 -0400, wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > I asked responder why he had taken a long time with such a hand ; he > answered that he had mis-seen the bidding, thought partner opened 1H and > took the mandatory pause over the "skip bid". I decided to believe him. > No UI about his hand, no penalty. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > No and No. > > Thomas Hood (1799 - 1845) > > No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds, -- November! > > Richard Hills > > The thoughts of the player creating the extraneous information are > irrelevant to a Law 16B1(a) ruling. It is the thoughts of that player's > partner, the one who receives the extraneous information, which > determines > what "could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the > extraneous > information". > > Robert Frick > > Right, but don't the thoughts determine whether or not it is information? > Or what it is information about? If the information is "I didn't realize > it > was my bid", then that information does not suggest a call or play. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > In my opinion both Alain and Robert are missing the point. It is the > break > in tempo by a player which is extraneous information to the player's > partner. A break in tempo does not by itself suggest anything. It is only when it suggests extra values that it is useful, and arguable it is the "extra values" which is suggesting another bid. > A subsequent self-serving excuse by the player for the tempo break > does not necessarily cancel the extraneous information to the player's > partner. > > A post facto excuse, after the deal is finished, by a player of taking a > mandatory pause due to a non-existent "skip bid" is definitely irrelevant > to the Law 16B1(a) legality of the player's partner's actions during the > auction and play. (Although it may be relevant to a possible Law 73F > deception ruling.) > > More complicated is the scenario of dealer pausing a long time before > passing, which demonstrably suggested that dealer wondered whether a sexy > 11 hcp (a sexy 9 hcp if I was dealer) was worth opening the bidding. If > dealer said contemporaneously with the pass, "Sorry, I was thinking about > the Vienna Coup on the previous board", then as Director I would rule > that > the initial extraneous information was not necessarily cancelled out by > the > further extraneous information -- especially if there was not any > possibility of a Vienna Coup on the previous board. Yes, but what are you going to do if the player who claimed he was thinking about something else first seat has only 7 HCP? And the player who claimed he was thinking about something else did not have any extra values but instead had an easy pass? -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Sep 20 06:47:55 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:47:55 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Robert Frick [snip] Yes, but what are you going to do if the player who claimed he was thinking about something else first seat has only 7 HCP? And the player who claimed he was thinking about something else did not have any extra values but instead had an easy pass? Richard Hills In my opinion, Robert Frick is missing the point about the _requirement_ for a player to select a _legal_ logical alternative, when that player's partner has provided extraneous information. What is legal or illegal initially under Law 73C cannot be retrospectively changed via time travel in a TARDIS. For example, take this hypothetical imp auction, with East-West vulnerable versus not vulnerable -> East, Hashmat Ali, deals and slooowly passes. In the Ali-Hills partnership this demonstrably suggests that Hashmat holds a balanced 11 hcp, since in the Ali-Hills system the 1NT opening bid range is 11-14 hcp, but Hashmat has wimped out several times in the past due to adverse vulnerability at imps. South passes in tempo. West, Richard Hills, actually holds a balanced 11 hcp. If Richard obeys system and opens 1NT, "a priori" there is a strong chance that North will execute a penalty double for a disastrous number of -500 or worse. But "a posteriori" Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests that Richard opening 1NT is safe, perhaps gaining a partscore swing. Ergo, Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests Richard obey system with a third-seat vul-vs-not 11 hcp 1NT at imp scoring. So Richard being wimpy, wimpy, wimpy with a non-systemic pass is the only legal logical alternative permitted by Law 73C. For the purposes of Law 73C it is entirely irrelevant whether, at the end of the deal, it is discovered that: (a) Hashmat in fact held the demonstrably suggested balanced 11 hcp (and broke tempo for a bridge reason) or (b) Hashmat in fact held a non-suggested mere 7 hcp (and broke tempo because Hashmat was thinking about a succulent vegetarian lunch). The TARDIS discovery of (b) being true will _not_ make Richard's once illegal logical alternative of 1NT now legal. 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/20110920/c7f3860a/attachment.html From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 12:07:36 2011 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (Brian) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:07:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7865E8.1060501@gmail.com> On 09/20/2011 12:47 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > East, Hashmat Ali, deals and slooowly passes. In the Ali-Hills > partnership this demonstrably suggests that Hashmat holds a balanced > 11 hcp, since in the Ali-Hills system the 1NT opening bid range is > 11-14 hcp, but Hashmat has wimped out several times in the past due to > adverse vulnerability at imps. South passes in tempo. West, Richard > Hills, actually holds a balanced 11 hcp. If Richard obeys system and > opens 1NT, "a priori" there is a strong chance that North will execute > a penalty double for a disastrous number of -500 or worse. But "a > posteriori" Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests that Richard > opening 1NT is safe, perhaps gaining a partscore swing. Ergo, > Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests Richard obey system with a > third-seat vul-vs-not 11 hcp 1NT at imp scoring. So Richard being > wimpy, wimpy, wimpy with a non-systemic pass is the only legal logical > alternative permitted by Law 73C. > There seems to me to be something wrong with a law which leaves you with violating your documented system as your only legal option. When you have a systemic choice between bids, then fine, I am all for your alternatives being constrained by UI, but once your system has got through the labyrinthine requirements imposed by certain NCBOs, it seems reasonable that you be allowed to follow it. Or are you telling us that you would sometimes pass with your documented third-hand 1NT range, Richard, and if your 11 HCP in the above example were (e.g.) a decent 12 count, you'd have no problem with the 1NT opener, despite Hashmat's slow pass? If you do pass a significant percentage of 11 counts anyway, then it sounds to me like your third-hand 1NT range might need to be amended to 11+ to 14. Brian. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Sep 20 17:11:37 2011 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:11:37 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3385913D-9F98-4059-A3C6-07B6B18A23A5@starpower.net> On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:47 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from > his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, > mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an > unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid > taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. > > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. > > Robert Frick > > [snip] > Yes, but what are you going to do if the player who claimed he was > thinking about something else first seat has only 7 HCP? And the > player who claimed he was thinking about something else did not > have any extra values but instead had an easy pass? > > Richard Hills > > In my opinion, Robert Frick is missing the point about the > _requirement_ for a player to select a _legal_ logical alternative, > when that player's partner has provided extraneous information. > What is legal or illegal initially under Law 73C cannot be > retrospectively changed via time travel in a TARDIS. > > For example, take this hypothetical imp auction, with East-West > vulnerable versus not vulnerable -> > > East, Hashmat Ali, deals and slooowly passes. In the Ali-Hills > partnership this demonstrably suggests that Hashmat holds a > balanced 11 hcp, > ... from which Richard's argument and conclusion follows inevitably. > since in the Ali-Hills system the 1NT opening bid range is 11-14 > hcp, but Hashmat has wimped out several times in the past due to > adverse vulnerability at imps. South passes in tempo. West, Richard > Hills, actually holds a balanced 11 hcp. If Richard obeys system > and opens 1NT, "a priori" there is a strong chance that North will > execute a penalty double for a disastrous number of -500 or worse. > But "a posteriori" Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests that > Richard opening 1NT is safe, perhaps gaining a partscore swing. > Ergo, Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests Richard obey > system with a third-seat vul-vs-not 11 hcp 1NT at imp scoring. So > Richard being wimpy, wimpy, wimpy with a non-systemic pass is the > only legal logical alternative permitted by Law 73C. > > For the purposes of Law 73C it is entirely irrelevant whether, at > the end of the deal, it is discovered that: > > (a) Hashmat in fact held the demonstrably suggested balanced 11 hcp > (and broke tempo for a bridge reason) > > or > > (b) Hashmat in fact held a non-suggested mere 7 hcp (and broke > tempo because Hashmat was thinking about a succulent vegetarian > lunch). > > The TARDIS discovery of (b) being true will _not_ make Richard's > once illegal logical alternative of 1NT now legal. > But such cases aren't always clear cut. The TD must determine what the extraneous action "demonstrably suggested", which may be a highly subjective judgment in some cases. In weighing the balance of probabilities, the TD may find it a lot easier to conclude that it was likely that the action "demonstrably suggested" a hand similar to the one actually held rather than something completely different, especially in a typically isolated case in which he has no prior knowledge of the partnership involved. Does Hashmat frequently space out thinking about lunch when it is his turn to bid, or is his hesitating usually a sure sign of a bidding problem? Richard knows the answer (and bases his argument on it), but a TD lacking Richard's knowledge will reasonably presume it more likely that Hashmat's typical behavior, and, thus, the information conveyed by it, more or less corresponds to what the TD sees in this partcular case. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Sep 20 23:36:08 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:36:08 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:47:55 -0400, wrote: > > Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his > partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, > mannerism, > undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or > failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that > unauthorized information. > > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. > > Robert Frick > > [snip] > Yes, but what are you going to do if the player who claimed he was > thinking > about something else first seat has only 7 HCP? And the player who > claimed > he was thinking about something else did not have any extra values but > instead had an easy pass? > > Richard Hills > > In my opinion, Robert Frick is missing the point about the _requirement_ > for a player to select a _legal_ logical alternative, when that player's > partner has provided extraneous information. What is legal or illegal > initially under Law 73C cannot be retrospectively changed via time travel > in a TARDIS. You are choosing to make a literal interpretation (in order to make a bad ruling?). This law seems to me to be what you called sloppily written. You usually do not make literal interpretations of sloppily written laws. Right? You just have to consider things more carefully. In your example below, there is a hesitation. Fine. A hesitation by itself doesn't *directly* suggest a call. The hesitation suggests that Hashmat has 11 HCP. This second statement suggests a call. Fine. But when this second statement isn't true, then it isn't information. A statement has to be correct to count as information, right? I amm pretty sure that is consistent with natural language use. If it isn't information, then it isn't unauthorized information or extraneous information. So L16B1 doesn't kick in. And the opponents aren't damaged if you try to use wrong information. What's the problem? > > For example, take this hypothetical imp auction, with East-West > vulnerable > versus not vulnerable -> > > East, Hashmat Ali, deals and slooowly passes. In the Ali-Hills > partnership > this demonstrably suggests that Hashmat holds a balanced 11 hcp, since in > the Ali-Hills system the 1NT opening bid range is 11-14 hcp, but Hashmat > has wimped out several times in the past due to adverse vulnerability at > imps. South passes in tempo. West, Richard Hills, actually holds a > balanced > 11 hcp. If Richard obeys system and opens 1NT, "a priori" there is a > strong > chance that North will execute a penalty double for a disastrous number > of > -500 or worse. But "a posteriori" Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably > suggests that Richard opening 1NT is safe, perhaps gaining a partscore > swing. Ergo, Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests Richard obey > system with a third-seat vul-vs-not 11 hcp 1NT at imp scoring. So Richard > being wimpy, wimpy, wimpy with a non-systemic pass is the only legal > logical alternative permitted by Law 73C. > > For the purposes of Law 73C it is entirely irrelevant whether, at the end > of the deal, it is discovered that: > > (a) Hashmat in fact held the demonstrably suggested balanced 11 hcp (and > broke tempo for a bridge reason) > > or > > (b) Hashmat in fact held a non-suggested mere 7 hcp (and broke tempo > because Hashmat was thinking about a succulent vegetarian lunch). > > The TARDIS discovery of (b) being true will _not_ make Richard's once > illegal logical alternative of 1NT now legal. > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- http://somepsychology.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 21 00:39:27 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:39:27 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Robert Frick You [Richard Hills] are choosing to make a literal interpretation (in order to make a bad ruling?). This law seems to me to be what you [Richard Hills] called sloppily written. You [Richard Hills] usually do not make literal interpretations of sloppily written laws. Right? [snip] Richard Hills Petitio principii, begging the question. Law 73C cannot cause "bad" rulings due to being a "sloppily written" law since Law 73C is _not_ a "sloppily written" Law. Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back, page 251: [discussing the rules of golf] For clubs, the rules become deliberately subjective. The head must be "plain in shape". This, for example, really means that it must look like a golf clubhead. Defining plainness precisely would have the revenge effect of promoting a search for loopholes. Richard Hills For Law 73C, the rules become deliberately subjective. A player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information". This, for example, really means that the numbers 1 - 7, the denominations clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades and no trumps, plus the calls Pass, Double and Redouble are properly the only information from partner which can be used during the auction. Defining "carefully" precisely would have the revenge effect of promoting a search for loopholes Grattan Endicott, 16th July 2004 +=+ As for that the laws that Moses brought down from the mountain were 'plain in shape' - simplicity, clarity and objectivity calcified - but this has not stopped thousands of years of interpretation, searches for loopholes, debate. Indeed, why has blml not taken up the subject? Or did I miss it? +=+ The Ten Commandments of Duplicate Bridge (with thanks to Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819-1861) Thou shalt have Grattan only; who Would be at the expense of two? No graven images may be Worshipped, except WBF LC: Swear oft at all; for when thou curse Thy TD's hearing gets much the worse: On bridge committees to attend Will serve to keep the world thy friend: Honour thy team-mates; that is, all From whom post-mortems may befall: Thou shalt not peek; but need'st not try Officiously to move your eye: Do not a psychic call commit; Advantage rarely comes of it: Thou shalt not dump; an empty feat, When it's so lucrative to cheat: Bear not false witness; let the lie Have time on its own wings to fly: Thou shalt not sponsor, but tradition Approves all forms of competition. Grattan Endicott, 16th July 2004 +=+ "Say not the struggle naught availeth, The labour and the wounds are vain, The enemy faints not, nor faileth, And as things have been, things remain." ~ A.H.C. 1855 +=+ 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/20110920/2b77f19c/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Sep 21 01:08:59 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:08:59 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:39:27 -0400, wrote: > > Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his > partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, > mannerism, > undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or > failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that > unauthorized information. > > * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. > > Robert Frick > > You [Richard Hills] are choosing to make a literal interpretation (in > order > to make a bad ruling?). This law seems to me to be what you [Richard > Hills] > called sloppily written. You [Richard Hills] usually do not make literal > interpretations of sloppily written laws. > Right? > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > Petitio principii, begging the question. Law 73C cannot cause "bad" > rulings > due to being a "sloppily written" law since Law 73C is _not_ a "sloppily > written" Law. Laughing. You are trying to use L73C? If someone gives you wrong information, you take advantage of it by doing the opposite of what it suggests. You cannot take advantage of wrong information by using it (or following it or doing what it suggests). Which is why we can let people use wrong information if they want, meanwhile not penalizing people who have just bid honestly or made wise or lucky decisions. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 21 01:28:05 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:28:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7865E8.1060501@gmail.com> Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe (1882) PEERS. Our lordly style You shall not quench With base canaille! FAIRIES. (That word is French.) PEERS. Distinction ebbs Before a herd Of vulgar plebs! FAIRIES. (A Latin word.) PEERS. ?Twould fill with joy, And madness stark The oi polloi! FAIRIES. (A Greek remark.) Brian Meadows There seems to me to be something wrong with a law which leaves you with violating your documented system as your only legal option. Richard Hills Normally violating system is _not_ a logical alternative, with two significant exceptions: (a) on the auction so far it is now a good idea to psyche, or (b) Law 75A is applicable; UI from pard that you have previously forgotten system means that you must continue to misbid. However, if one is playing a symmetrically silly system, then choosing a wimpy violation of the ridiculously recondite rapport with pard could be a logical alternative. And if it could be a logical alternative, then under Law 16B it may be true that it is the _only_ logical alternative. What's the problem? Yes, I know that Ali-Hills have a problem due to our massively meretricious methods. Brian Meadows [snip] If you do pass a significant percentage of 11 counts anyway, then it sounds to me like your third-hand 1NT range might need to be amended to 11+ to 14. Richard Hills Good point about the word "significant". The key criterion in Law 40C1 is " partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents". On a googol number of occasions Ali-Hills have upgraded balanced 10 hcp, downgraded balanced 11 hcp, upgraded balanced 14 hcp, downgraded balanced 15 hcp. But Ali-Hills play a googolplex number of deals each year. So our 1NT deviations are proportionately extremely rare, hence pard is as unreasoning and unaware as the opponents. Thus the deviations in our 1NT range are not listed on our System Cards. On the other hand, the Ali-Hills System Cards list, "frequent false count versus no trump contracts, the false count of low-high with an even number more likely than the false count of high-low with an odd number". 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/20110920/fc081592/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 21 06:09:02 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:09:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Key values of Duplicate Bridge - $0.02 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), the Four Laws of Robotics Zeroth Law A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. First Law A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. Richard Hills My two cents' worth opinion of what the key values(1) of Duplicate Bridge are -> Zeroth Value A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. First Value 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. Second Value A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept. Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws. Third Value When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Kind regards Richard Hills (1) Key values, not key rules, hence my failure to quote from most of the Lawbook. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110921/1a339aa1/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Sep 21 07:35:45 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:35:45 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3385913D-9F98-4059-A3C6-07B6B18A23A5@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau [snip] Does Hashmat frequently space out thinking about lunch when it is his turn to bid, or is his hesitating usually a sure sign of a bidding problem? [snip] Richard Hills Bidding space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Symmetric Relay system. Its five-year mission: to explore a strange new contract in a 1-1 fit, to seek out new Laws and new regulations, to boldly go where no lunch has gone before. Yes, Hashmat hesitating is usually a sure sign of a bidding problem. In fact, that was a significant reason why we abandoned Aussie Standard American to take up Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed on request). During an uncontested game-forcing Aussie Standard American auction Hashmat would often go into the tank with a bridge problem, thus forcing me to select a contraindicated logical alternative and consequently a loss of a dozen imps. But in an uncontested game-forcing relay auction a contraindicated logical alternative does not exist -- unlike the too-flexible Standard system, an inflexible game-force relay limits the number of logical alternatives to just one. 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/20110921/5e77e822/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 21 15:39:05 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:39:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E79E8F9.4070807@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/09/2011 0:20, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Frodo Baggins > > Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes. > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > To take an extreme case : the waiter pours coffee on partner's sleeve, > and he reacts. Does it affect your right to bid 4C ? > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > No and Yes. > > If partner's reaction is to say "Ouch!", then as Director I would rule > that hot coffee is demonstrably suggested. > If partner's reaction is to say "I hold AKQxxx in clubs", then as > Director I would rule that 4C is demonstrably suggested. > AG: Okay, so the case is settled. The reaction in this case was 'oh oh' IIRC. > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > I asked responder why he had taken a long time with such a hand ; he > answered that he had mis-seen the bidding, thought partner opened 1H > and took the mandatory pause over the "skip bid". I decided to believe > him. > No UI about his hand, no penalty. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > No and No. > > The thoughts of the player creating the extraneous information are > irrelevant to a Law 16B1(a) ruling. It is the thoughts of that > player's partner, the one who receives the extraneous information, > which determines what "could demonstrably have been suggested over > another by the extraneous information". > AG : I think that you misunderstood me. I rule that there was no UI, based on evidence at the table (the nonspecific reaction and the player's hand) This is the first step. Therefore, there can't be anything that's suggested by UI. No second step. Take this /cause celebre/ from a Belgian tournament : KQxx xxxx AQxx Jxxxx Ax Qxx AKQ x 2C (1) 2D X (2) p 2H p 3H p 3S p 3NT p 4C p 4H ap (1) US syle : strong, but several below-game bailouts available (2) unmistakable tempo, albeit not very long The TD ruled that the slow double had prompted West tot take out, and pulled the contract back to 2D X -2 The AC changed this ruling back to 4H just made, after EW produced convincing evidence that the double showed 4+ hearts in their system, and after asking East why he took more time than usual. His answer : 'I had to remember a complex set of agreements'. (hope you consider this a valid bridge reason) The problem is that we too easily pretend that something is 'unmistakably suggested' In this case, the TD wrongly thought that the hesitation suggested an imperfect penalty double. The acid test : West would have taken out a quicker double too. And in the case that launched this thread, you wrongly thought that the reaction suggested that the player didn't hold diamonds. Moire probably, he just realized that 2D was available. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110921/9b29d06b/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 21 15:43:37 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:43:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E79EA09.7080005@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/09/2011 3:39, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > I asked responder why he had taken a long time with such a hand ; he > answered that he had mis-seen the bidding, thought partner opened 1H > and took the mandatory pause over the "skip bid". I decided to believe > him. > No UI about his hand, no penalty. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > No and No. > > Thomas Hood (1799 - 1845) > > No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds, -- November! > > Richard Hills > > The thoughts of the player creating the extraneous information are > irrelevant to a Law 16B1(a) ruling. It is the thoughts of that > player's partner, the one who receives the extraneous information, > which determines what "could demonstrably have been suggested over > another by the extraneous information". > > Robert Frick > > Right, but don't the thoughts determine whether or not it is > information? Or what it is information about? If the information is "I > didn't realize it was my bid", then that information does not suggest > a call or play. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > In my opinion both Alain and Robert are missing the point. It is the > break in tempo by a player which is extraneous information to the > player's partner. > AG : right, but information about what ? This is not the same as a very slow pass or very slow penalty double. cf the word 'demonstrably' in TFLB. > More complicated is the scenario of dealer pausing a long time before > passing, which demonstrably suggested that dealer wondered whether a > sexy 11 hcp (a sexy 9 hcp if I was dealer) was worth opening the > bidding. If dealer said contemporaneously with the pass, "Sorry, I was > thinking about the Vienna Coup on the previous board", then as > Director I would rule that the initial extraneous information was not > necessarily cancelled out by the further extraneous information -- > especially if there was not any possibility of a Vienna Coup on the > previous board. > AG : but would you rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested 11 points if the player in fact held a yarborough ? And in this case, would you rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested no diamond suit if the player in fact held one ? If you answer 'yes' to either, then we have different views about what demonstrating is. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110921/138e4a92/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 21 15:51:48 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:51:48 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" In-Reply-To: <3385913D-9F98-4059-A3C6-07B6B18A23A5@starpower.net> References: <3385913D-9F98-4059-A3C6-07B6B18A23A5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4E79EBF4.4050902@ulb.ac.be> Le 20/09/2011 17:11, Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:47 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner >> >> When a player has available to him unauthorized information from >> his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, >> mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an >> unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid >> taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. >> >> * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. >> >> Robert Frick >> >> [snip] >> Yes, but what are you going to do if the player who claimed he was >> thinking about something else first seat has only 7 HCP? And the >> player who claimed he was thinking about something else did not >> have any extra values but instead had an easy pass? >> >> Richard Hills >> >> In my opinion, Robert Frick is missing the point about the >> _requirement_ for a player to select a _legal_ logical alternative, >> when that player's partner has provided extraneous information. >> What is legal or illegal initially under Law 73C cannot be >> retrospectively changed via time travel in a TARDIS. >> >> For example, take this hypothetical imp auction, with East-West >> vulnerable versus not vulnerable -> >> >> East, Hashmat Ali, deals and slooowly passes. In the Ali-Hills >> partnership this demonstrably suggests that Hashmat holds a >> balanced 11 hcp, >> > ... from which Richard's argument and conclusion follows inevitably. >> since in the Ali-Hills system the 1NT opening bid range is 11-14 >> hcp, but Hashmat has wimped out several times in the past due to >> adverse vulnerability at imps. South passes in tempo. West, Richard >> Hills, actually holds a balanced 11 hcp. If Richard obeys system >> and opens 1NT, "a priori" there is a strong chance that North will >> execute a penalty double for a disastrous number of -500 or worse. >> But "a posteriori" Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests that >> Richard opening 1NT is safe, perhaps gaining a partscore swing. >> Ergo, Hashmat's slooow pass demonstrably suggests Richard obey >> system with a third-seat vul-vs-not 11 hcp 1NT at imp scoring. So >> Richard being wimpy, wimpy, wimpy with a non-systemic pass is the >> only legal logical alternative permitted by Law 73C. >> >> For the purposes of Law 73C it is entirely irrelevant whether, at >> the end of the deal, it is discovered that: >> >> (a) Hashmat in fact held the demonstrably suggested balanced 11 hcp >> (and broke tempo for a bridge reason) >> >> or >> >> (b) Hashmat in fact held a non-suggested mere 7 hcp (and broke >> tempo because Hashmat was thinking about a succulent vegetarian >> lunch). >> >> The TARDIS discovery of (b) being true will _not_ make Richard's >> once illegal logical alternative of 1NT now legal. >> > But such cases aren't always clear cut. The TD must determine what > the extraneous action "demonstrably suggested", which may be a highly > subjective judgment in some cases. In weighing the balance of > probabilities, the TD may find it a lot easier to conclude that it > was likely that the action "demonstrably suggested" a hand similar to > the one actually held rather than something completely different, > especially in a typically isolated case in which he has no prior > knowledge of the partnership involved. AG : my thoughts exactly. Whence you indeed have to look at the player's hand and decide what his thoughts were. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Sep 21 15:58:34 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:58:34 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Key values of Duplicate Bridge - $0.02 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E79ED8A.6050105@ulb.ac.be> Le 21/09/2011 6:09, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Third Value > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his > partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, > mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an > unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking > any advantage from that unauthorized information. > AG : we all agree about this. What we disagree about is when UI is available. IMOBO, If there are umpteen possible explanations about partner's gesture, mannerism etc., then there is no information available. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110921/262af40a/attachment.html From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 23:01:41 2011 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:01:41 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Key values of Duplicate Bridge - $0.02 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E79ED8A.6050105@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E79ED8A.6050105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Le 21/09/2011 6:09, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Third Value > > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his > partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, > undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or > failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that > unauthorized information. > > AG : we all agree about this. What we disagree about is when UI is > available. IMOBO, If there are umpteen possible explanations about partner's > gesture, mannerism etc., then there is no information available. > > A quibble: The more explanation the less the information content but there is still information present. It may be less than one bit but it will create a bias for action or inaction. Collins > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110921/8db10dd2/attachment-0001.html From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Sep 21 23:44:38 2011 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:44:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Key values of Duplicate Bridge - $0.02 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4E79ED8A.6050105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: I'm not too sure, but that sounds almost sensible. If so he needs to be booted out. A quibble: The more explanation the less the information content but there is still information present. It may be less than one bit but it will create a bias for action or inaction. Collins _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110921/95fa1e74/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1347 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110921/95fa1e74/attachment.gif From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 22 00:18:21 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:18:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Key values of Duplicate Bridge - $0.02 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E79ED8A.6050105@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert, Iolanthe (1882) The feelings of a Lord Chancellor who is in love with a Ward of Court are not to be envied. What is his position? Can he give his own consent to his own marriage with his own Ward? Can he marry his own Ward without his own consent? And if he marries his own Ward without his own consent, can he commit himself for contempt of his own Court? And if he commit himself for contempt of his own Court, can he appear by counsel before himself, to move for arrest of his own judgement? Seigneur Chancelier Alain Gottcheiner asserted [snip] IMOBO, If there are umpteen possible explanations about partner's gesture, mannerism etc., then there is no information available. Lord Chancellor Richard Hills quibbles In my obviously biased opinion "umpteen possible suggestions" does not necessarily mean "zero demonstrable suggestion". If there are twenty plausible suggestions, but nineteen of them have only a 1% likelihood each, then the twentieth suggestion with the 81% probability is the demonstrable suggestion. 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/20110921/63ce537a/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 22 05:55:50 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:55:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E79E8F9.4070807@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner [snip] Take this cause celebre from a Belgian tournament : WEST................EAST KQxx................xxxx AQxx................Jxxxx Ax..................Qxx AKQ.................x WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 2C(1).....2D........X (2).....Pass 2H........Pass......3H........Pass 3S........Pass......3NT.......Pass 4C........Pass......4H........Pass Pass......Pass (1) US style : strong, but several below-game bailouts available (2) unmistakable tempo, albeit not very long The TD ruled that the slow double had prompted West to take out, and pulled the contract back to 2D X -2 The AC changed this ruling back to 4H just made, after EW produced convincing evidence that the double showed 4+ hearts in their system, and after asking East why he took more time than usual. His answer : 'I had to remember a complex set of agreements'. (hope you consider this a valid bridge reason) The problem is that we too easily pretend that something is 'unmistakably suggested' In this case, the TD wrongly thought that the hesitation suggested an imperfect penalty double. The acid test : West would have taken out a quicker double too. [snip] Richard Hills Take this cause celebre from a Ruritanian tournament: WEST................EAST KQxx................xxxx AQxx................Jxxxx Ax..................Qxx AKQ.................x WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH 2C(1).....2D........X (2).....Pass 2H(3).....Pass......3H........Pass 3S........Pass......3NT.......Pass 4C........Pass......4H........Pass Pass......Pass (1) Standard American style: strong, but several below-game bailouts available. (2) Inflammable tempo, albeit not very long. (3) The pre-existing mutual partnership understanding of this Ruritanian partnership is that East's double promises 4+ hearts. However, West more frequently plays Standard American with a different Ruritanian partner, and in that other partnership uses the traditional Standard method that after a strong 2C opening bid all doubles by either partner are penalty (with all passes by either partner forcing for one round). Furthermore, West is notoriously forgetful about which partner is currently sitting East, since all of West's partners resemble Gandalf the Grey. (4) The Director correctly ruled that the slow double had prompted West's memory of the current East-West methods, and pulled the contract back to 2D X -2 The Appeals Committee incorrectly changed this ruling back to 4H just made, after East-West produced convincing evidence that the double showed 4+ hearts in their system -- irrelevant to a Law 75A ruling. The Appeals Committee incorrectly asked East why she took more time than usual -- irrelevant to a Law 73C ruling. But a Disciplinary Committee correctly asked East the same question. East's answer: "I had to remember a complex set of agreements" was of course a valid bridge reason for both East and West, so East avoided a Law 73F disciplinary penalty. The problem is that we too easily pretend that players have perfect memories for their methods. In this case, the Director rightly thought that the hesitation demonstrably suggested a non-penalty double, and that West misremembering East's double as penalties was a logical alternative. The acid test: West would have passed an in-tempo double. Kind regards Richard Hills (4) There is a Ruritanian tradition that a bridge player must wear a beard when she is seated at the bridge table. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110922/6a954dbb/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Sep 22 08:21:46 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:21:46 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E79EA09.7080005@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner AG : but would you rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested 11 points if the player in fact held a yarborough ? [snip] If you answer 'yes' to either, then we have different views about what demonstrating is. Richard Hills Yes, we have different views. W.H. Auden (1907 - 1973) Time that with this strange excuse Pardoned Kipling and his views, And will pardon Paul Claudel, Pardons him for writing well. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110922/7605bb1e/attachment-0001.html From blml at arcor.de Thu Sep 22 16:01:25 2011 From: blml at arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:01:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1903562242.1599147.1316700085217.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : but would you rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested 11 > points if the player in fact held a yarborough ? > [snip] > If you answer 'yes' to either, then we have different views about what > demonstrating is. > > Richard Hills > > Yes, we have different views. I agree with Alain's interpretation. The word "demonstrably" was added to TFLB for a reason. The law is not "if it hesitates, shoot it". There must exist significant evidence that the hesitation suggested the chosen action over an LA which was not chosen. Thomas From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 22 16:38:01 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:38:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7B4849.407@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/09/2011 5:55, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > > [snip] > Take this cause celebre from a Belgian tournament : > > WEST................EAST > KQxx................xxxx > AQxx................Jxxxx > Ax..................Qxx > AKQ.................x > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 2C(1).....2D........X (2).....Pass > 2H........Pass......3H........Pass > 3S........Pass......3NT.......Pass > 4C........Pass......4H........Pass > Pass......Pass > > (1) US style : strong, but several below-game bailouts available > (2) unmistakable tempo, albeit not very long > > The TD ruled that the slow double had prompted West to take out, and > pulled the contract back to 2D X -2 > > The AC changed this ruling back to 4H just made, after EW produced > convincing evidence that the double showed 4+ hearts in their system, > and after asking East why he took more time than usual. His answer : > 'I had to remember a complex set of agreements'. (hope you consider > this a valid bridge reason) > > The problem is that we too easily pretend that something is > 'unmistakably suggested' > In this case, the TD wrongly thought that the hesitation suggested an > imperfect penalty double. > The acid test : West would have taken out a quicker double too. > [snip] > > Richard Hills > > Take this cause celebre from a Ruritanian tournament: > > WEST................EAST > KQxx................xxxx > AQxx................Jxxxx > Ax..................Qxx > AKQ.................x > > WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH > 2C(1).....2D........X (2).....Pass > 2H(3).....Pass......3H........Pass > 3S........Pass......3NT.......Pass > 4C........Pass......4H........Pass > Pass......Pass > > > (1) Standard American style: strong, but several below-game bailouts > available. > (2) Inflammable tempo, albeit not very long. > (3) The pre-existing mutual partnership understanding of this > Ruritanian partnership is that East's double promises 4+ hearts. > However, West more frequently plays Standard American with a different > Ruritanian partner, and in that other partnership uses the traditional > Standard method that after a strong 2C opening bid all doubles by > either partner are penalty (with all passes by either partner forcing > for one round). Furthermore, West is notoriously forgetful about which > partner is currently sitting East, since all of West's partners > resemble Gandalf the Grey. > AG : sorry, that's not the case under scrutiny. If merely taking some time to remember one's system makes you liable to penalty from a TD who invents a whole story to make the case match his theory, then there is something rotten in the kingdom of Ruritania. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110922/cb11e3c0/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Sep 22 16:40:44 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:40:44 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7B48EC.40901@ulb.ac.be> Le 22/09/2011 8:21, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : but would you rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested 11 > points if the player in fact held a yarborough ? > [snip] > If you answer 'yes' to either, then we have different views about what > demonstrating is. > > Richard Hills > > Yes, we have different views. > AG : if i understand it well, you think that you can deduce from this player's tempo that he has a maximum pass, and stick to it even if it later appears that he doesn't ? Then all what I can deduce is that your deduction was wrong. > > W.H. Auden (1907 - 1973) > > Time that with this strange excuse > Pardoned Kipling and his views, > And will pardon Paul Claudel, > Pardons him for writing well. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110922/8e11388f/attachment.html From bpark56 at comcast.net Thu Sep 22 19:36:40 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:36:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7B48EC.40901@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E7B48EC.40901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E7B7228.30601@comcast.net> Can someone please explain how it is that misinformation becomes information...which seems to be Richard's position? Also...how is it that misinformation, if acted upon (whether unintentionally or on purpose)...which action would usually lead to a poor result...can be anything other than rub of the green if a favorable result should occur? From zecurado at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 23:43:44 2011 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:43:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] insuficient bid slow alert Message-ID: Hello! Club tournament with strongish players. W dealer: W........N........E........S 1H.......1S......2H......2S 3H.......3D*....(P) North's 3D bid was alerted when East's Pass was already flying to the table. East asks for an explanation as he may want to change his call and now everybody wakes up to the fact that 3D was insuficient. TD! East wants to know if he can change his call and if he has to acept the IB. Best regards, Jose Julio Curado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110922/70fdc76b/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 23 00:33:06 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:33:06 +1000 Subject: [BLML] 2009 EBU Appeals booklet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The 2009 EBU Appeals booklet is now available from the EBU website at http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm. 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/20110922/3c0ea411/attachment-0001.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 23 01:14:15 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:14:15 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7B4849.407@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Monty Python's Life of Brian OFFICIAL: Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'. BEARD-WEARING CROWD OF WOMEN: Ooooooh!... [BEARD-WEARING CROWD OF WOMEN stones OFFICIAL] BEARD-WEARING WOMAN #1: Good shot! [clap clap clap] Richard Hills ... Furthermore, West is notoriously forgetful about which partner is currently sitting East, since all of West's partners resemble Gandalf the Grey ... There is a Ruritanian tradition that a bridge player must wear a beard when she is seated at the bridge table. Alain Gottcheiner AG : sorry, that's not the case under scrutiny. Richard Hills Sorry, but Alain was talking about a Belgian case which had a particular set of facts in order for Alain to highlight a particular point of Law. I am talking about a Ruritanian case which had a different set of facts in order for me to highlight a different point of Law. Alain Gottcheiner If merely taking some time to remember one's system makes you liable to penalty from a TD who invents a whole story to make the case match his theory, then there is something rotten in the kingdom of Ruritania. Richard Hills In my sincere personal opinion (YMMV) Alain is naive, with him too often accepting plausible ivory tower ideas from Herman De Wael et al. Because in my sad real-world experience there is something rotten in the kingdom of non-expert bridge. If a non-expert player notices that her non-expert partner has or is about to forget their non-expert methods, then she often indulges in mild ch**t*ng by intentionally hesitating in order to prompt partner's memory. 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/20110922/d99af7b0/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 23 02:02:19 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:02:19 +1000 Subject: [BLML] insufficient bid slow alert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello! Club tournament with strongish players. W dealer: W........N........E........S 1H.......1S.......2H......2S 3H.......3D*.....(P) North's 3D bid was alerted when East's Pass was already flying to the table. East asks for an explanation as he may want to change his call and now everybody wakes up to the fact that 3D was insufficient. TD! East wants to know if he can change his call and if he has to accept the IB. Best regards, Jose Julio Curado Law 21B1(a) Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). ***Failure to alert promptly*** where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation. 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/20110923/92e07670/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 23 02:34:11 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:34:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1903562242.1599147.1316700085217.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail09.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: Thomas Dehn I agree with Alain's interpretation. The word "demonstrably" was added to TFLB for a reason. The law is not "if it hesitates, shoot it". There must exist significant evidence that the hesitation suggested the chosen action over an LA which was not chosen. Richard Hills I completely agree with Thomas. I completely disagree with Alain. Since Thomas says that he agrees with Alain, it seems that we have three blind men describing an elephant. And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110923/2dc5337d/attachment.html From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Sep 23 03:22:10 2011 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:22:10 +1000 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7B48EC.40901@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner AG : but would you rule that the hesitation demonstrably suggested 11 points if the player in fact held a yarborough ? [snip] If you answer 'yes' to either, then we have different views about what demonstrating is. Richard Hills Yes, we have different views. Alain Gottcheiner AG : if i understand it well, Richard Hills Do we understand each other well? It is distinctly possible that Alain and I both have hidden premises in our logic, so hence are talking at cross-purposes. A simple example may clarify what I think is the key issue -> Hashmat opens 1H, I raise to 2H, and now there is a looong pause before Hashmat elects to employ a 3D trial bid. My memory of the previous 100 identical auction, with 100 identical looong pauses, is that Hashmat was pessimistic in 81 of those cases (he could perhaps have jumped to 4H) and optimistic in 19 of those cases (he could perhaps have passed 2H). Unfortunately I do not have any bidding space to make a counter-trial bid. Furthermore, both signing off in 3H and jumping to 4H are "a priori" logical alternatives for me. In my opinion, by 81% to 19%, Hashmat is demonstrably suggesting that my borderline hand is sufficient for game. So, pursuant to Law 73C, I signoff in 3H. At the end of the deal I discover that my virtue has been rewarded, since because the 19% option is true Hashmat makes exactly nine tricks. What's the problem? Alain Gottcheiner you think that you can deduce from this player's tempo that he has a maximum pass, and stick to it even if it later appears that he doesn't ? Then all what I can deduce is that your deduction was wrong. Richard Hills Alain's word "later" contains a hidden assumption. Is Alain referring to end-of-deal "later" or during-the-auction "later"? A variation on my Hashmat hypothetical -> (a) First, the looong pause by hypothetical Hashmat, then the 3D trial bid. (b) First UI demonstrably suggests 81% pessimism to 19% optimism, so at this point in time my only legal call is 3H. (c) Second UI is hypothetical Hashmat cursing in Bengali.(1) My experience of hypothetical Hashmat's Bengali curses is that each and every one coincides with an optimistic call. (d) Second UI refines first UI, demonstrably suggesting that a 19% optimism case has now become a 100% optimism case, so at this +++later+++ point in time my only legal call is 4H. Kind regards Richard Hills (1) The real Hashmat, however, has a superbly affable temperament. So on one recent occasion at the Canberra Bridge Club he affably conversed in Bengali with our equally bilingual opponents (reminiscent of the Australia versus Brazil international match when the players conversed in Hungarian). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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/20110923/4fbe4aed/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Sep 23 03:52:17 2011 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:52:17 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" In-Reply-To: <4E772CCD.4090006@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E750B30.3060507@nhcc.net> <4E772CCD.4090006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4E7BE651.4070809@nhcc.net> On 9/19/2011 7:51 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > To cut it short, you should use the well-known "balance of > probabilities" principle in order to decide whether UI was indeed > transmitted. And also what the UI suggests. In fact, that's really what this thread comes down to: how does the Director determine what the UI suggests when it's not obvious. One method is to say the UI shows whatever hand the UI-giver happens to hold, but that doesn't seem very sensible to me. What do you do with invitational bids such as 1NT-...2NT or 1M-...3M? Is responder close to a game force or close to a pass/2M? Years ago, we had a long and acrimonious thread about some EBU guidance on this subject, but where I play, I think it's hard to tell. Saying the UI shows what responder has is just another version of "if it hesitates, shoot it." In the original case in this thread, the OP seemed sure the UI suggested poor diamonds. He was there, and I wasn't, so I have no reason to dispute his assessment. On the actual facts presented, however, I don't think we can tell. > If there isn't UI, or if which UI it could be is impossible to guess, > then there could be no use of UI. Right. Or more properly, the UI doesn't suggest any LA over another. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 23 05:04:29 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 04:04:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A simple test case: South: 2H by South who holds S:AK H:Axxxxxx D:KQx C:A North: 4N by North who holds S:x H:Qxxx D:x C:KQJxxxx South: 5D After audibly counting 1234 under his breath. North: 6H All pass Explanations: 2H = Strong 4N = RKC 5D = shows 0 or 3 key-cards according to the NS system (recently changed from 1 or 4 keycards) Opponents call the director because dummy (North) has no aces. South has not made a mistake. He has 3 aces. He makes 6H when trumps split. South explains that he had started to count to ten (over partner?s jump bid) but ceased when he decided it was not his place to do so. I guess that ... Alain and Co would rule no adjustment because no ACTUAL UI. Richard and Co would rule an adjustment because there was APPARENT UI and North seems to have taken advantage. I agree with Richard: Wrong information is still information. At the time he (seemingly) used it, North could well have believed it to be genuine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110923/08b10f18/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Sep 23 05:13:35 2011 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:13:35 -0400 Subject: [BLML] insuficient bid slow alert In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93A166E32DEA4BD0A00F9288FB49F7AC@erdos> First, we need to determine whether 3D was a deliberate bid or a mispull. If it was a mispull (North intended to bid 4D), then it was identified in time, and North and East's calls are both withdrawn. If East passed too quickly to receive a timely alert (as suggested by "flying to the table"), then his pass stands, as he did not allow himself to be properly informed and thus cannot be misinformed. The pass also accepts the IB. If East passed in normal tempo, then I would rule that he was misinformed. While it is not permissible to have an alertable agreement about the meaning of an insufficient bid, it is permissible to have general agreements about the meaning of bids, such as short-suit game tries (presumably what 3D means here). Since East was misinformed, Law 21B1(a) allows him to change his call. Law 27A(1) says that the IB is accepted as sufficient if the next player calls, and East did call. Law 21B1(a) does not allow East to change his call to a no-call (or to a Director call), so he has accepted the IB. Thus I rule that the 3D call stands without penalty but East is free to retract his call (and the withdrawn pass is UI to N-S). ----- Original Message ----- From: Jos? J?lio Curado To: BLML Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:43 PM Subject: [BLML] insuficient bid slow alert Hello! Club tournament with strongish players. W dealer: W........N........E........S 1H.......1S......2H......2S 3H.......3D*....(P) North's 3D bid was alerted when East's Pass was already flying to the table. East asks for an explanation as he may want to change his call and now everybody wakes up to the fact that 3D was insuficient. TD! East wants to know if he can change his call and if he has to acept the IB. Best regards, Jose Julio Curado ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20110923/6af6733f/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 23 13:37:43 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:37:43 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7C6F87.6020305@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/09/2011 1:14, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Monty Python's Life of Brian > > OFFICIAL: Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one > is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! > Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say > 'Jehovah'. > > BEARD-WEARING CROWD OF WOMEN: Ooooooh!... > > [BEARD-WEARING CROWD OF WOMEN stones OFFICIAL] > > BEARD-WEARING WOMAN #1: Good shot! > > [clap clap clap] > > Richard Hills > > ... Furthermore, West is notoriously forgetful about which partner is > currently sitting East, since all of West's partners resemble Gandalf > the Grey ... There is a Ruritanian tradition that a bridge player must > wear a beard when she is seated at the bridge table. > > Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : sorry, that's not the case under scrutiny. > > Richard Hills > > Sorry, but Alain was talking about a Belgian case which had a > particular set of facts in order for Alain to highlight a particular > point of Law. I am talking about a Ruritanian case which had a > different set of facts in order for me to highlight a different point > of Law. > > Alain Gottcheiner > > If merely taking some time to remember one's system makes you liable > to penalty from a TD who invents a whole story to make the case match > his theory, then there is something rotten in the kingdom of Ruritania. > > Richard Hills > > In my sincere personal opinion (YMMV) Alain is naive, with him too > often accepting plausible ivory tower ideas from Herman De Wael et al. > > Because in my sad real-world experience there is something rotten in > the kingdom of non-expert bridge. If a non-expert player notices that > her non-expert partner has or is about to forget their non-expert > methods, then she often indulges in mild ch**t*ng by intentionally > hesitating in order to prompt partner's memory. > > AGH : I can follow you on that. You'll need strong evidence to ascertain this, but it is an element that can need consideration. Notice that this is completely different from creating UI from hesitations. Here is one related problem that I once had. My partner was fond of preempts, and we played some "two-way" openings. . Since he would never hesitate about preempting, I could guess, when he thought a bit before making one, that he was evaluating his hand : "is it dtrong enough for a near-force ?." "isn't it too strong for a NGF bid ?" We solved the problem by requiring from him the discipline of taking some time before opening a two-way bid of the weak type. Notice that, after this was settled, the fact that he took a few seconds before bidding didn't mean anything, and we wouldn't like some members of blml to pretend the opposite. Best regards Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20110923/71f3bd57/attachment.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 23 17:19:00 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:19:00 -0400 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:04:29 -0400, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > A simple test case: > South: 2H by South who holds S:AK H:Axxxxxx D:KQx C:A > North: 4N by North who holds S:x H:Qxxx D:x C:KQJxxxx > South: 5D After audibly counting 1234 under his breath. > North: 6H > All pass > Explanations: > 2H = Strong > 4N = RKC > 5D = shows 0 or 3 key-cards according to the NS system (recently changed > from 1 or 4 keycards) > Opponents call the director because dummy (North) has no aces. > South has not made a mistake. He has 3 aces. He makes 6H when trumps > split. > South explains that he had started to count to ten (over partner?s jump > bid) but ceased when he decided it was not his place to do so. > I guess that ... > Alain and Co would rule no adjustment because no ACTUAL UI. > Richard and Co would rule an adjustment because there was APPARENT UI > and North seems to have taken advantage. > I agree with Richard: Wrong information is still information. At the > time he (seemingly) used it, North could well have believed it to be > genuine. I think there are two separate issues. Wasn't it Paul who discussed this? If a player intentionally uses extraneous information, that is wrong, even if the information is wrong or misleading and the player is hurt by the use. You seem to be addressing this issue. (Ironically. L73 should probably be serving this but does not.) The other question is rectification. Should we rectify for merely possible use of "information" that in fact was incorrect and hence could not be profitably used? There is no need to make those rectifications (which would occur only for rub or the green or the player making a good choice) and in fact making the rectifications end up punishing honest players for no good reason. And I disagree with your claim that wrong information is still information. I think it stops being information when it is wrong. -- http://somepsychology.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 23 17:34:30 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:34:30 -0400 Subject: [BLML] insuficient bid slow alert In-Reply-To: <93A166E32DEA4BD0A00F9288FB49F7AC@erdos> References: <93A166E32DEA4BD0A00F9288FB49F7AC@erdos> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:13:35 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: > First, we need to determine whether 3D was a deliberate bid or a > mispull. If it was a mispull (North intended to bid 4D), then it was > identified in time, and North and East's calls are both withdrawn. > > If East passed too quickly to receive a timely alert (as suggested by > "flying to the table"), then his pass stands, as he did not allow > himself to be properly informed and thus cannot be misinformed. The > pass also accepts the IB. > > If East passed in normal tempo, then I would rule that he was > misinformed. While it is not permissible to have an alertable agreement > about the meaning of an insufficient bid, it is permissible to have > general agreements about the meaning of bids, such as short-suit game > tries (presumably what 3D means here). Since East was misinformed, This is not obvious to me, now that you mention it. I didn't see it before. Technically, the 3D bid has no meaning. Traditionally, insufficient bids do not need to be alerted. So there should have been no alert. Right? (If we require correct alerts of insufficient bids, do we also require correct explanations of the insufficient bid?) And, if we let the player withdraw his pass, what information would he get to justifiably change his call? I think this was not in ACBL-land, so he is not entitled to information about the meaning of the 3D bid in other auctions, although he could look on the convention card. He probably doesn't want to change his call, so I am guessing this is not the issue. (The issue is if the IB has been accepted by a withdrawn call, and I agree that it is.) > Law 21B1(a) allows him to change his call. Law 27A(1) says that the IB > is accepted as sufficient if the next player calls, and East did call. > Law 21B1(a) does not allow East to change his call to a no-call (or to a > Director call), so he has accepted the IB. Thus I rule that the 3D call > stands without penalty but East is free to retract his call (and the > withdrawn pass is UI to N-S). > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jos? J?lio Curado > To: BLML > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:43 PM > Subject: [BLML] insuficient bid slow alert > > > Hello! > > > Club tournament with strongish players. > > > W dealer: > > > W........N........E........S > 1H.......1S......2H......2S > 3H.......3D*....(P) > > > North's 3D bid was alerted when East's Pass was already flying to the > table. East asks for an explanation as he may want to change his call > and now everybody wakes up to the fact that 3D was insuficient. TD! > > > East wants to know if he can change his call and if he has to acept > the IB. > > > Best regards, > Jose Julio Curado > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- http://somepsychology.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Sep 23 17:35:57 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:35:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7CA75D.9020307@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/09/2011 17:19, Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:04:29 -0400, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > >> A simple test case: >> South: 2H by South who holds S:AK H:Axxxxxx D:KQx C:A >> North: 4N by North who holds S:x H:Qxxx D:x C:KQJxxxx >> South: 5D After audibly counting 1234 under his breath. >> North: 6H >> All pass >> Explanations: >> 2H = Strong >> 4N = RKC >> 5D = shows 0 or 3 key-cards according to the NS system (recently changed >> from 1 or 4 keycards) >> Opponents call the director because dummy (North) has no aces. >> South has not made a mistake. He has 3 aces. He makes 6H when trumps >> split. >> South explains that he had started to count to ten (over partner?s jump >> bid) but ceased when he decided it was not his place to do so. >> I guess that ... >> Alain and Co would rule no adjustment because no ACTUAL UI. AG : to the contrary ; I would be very harsh against the player, who might well have found a way to show 3? aces (i.e. length subsitution for the missing HK) by showing three and counting up to four. The explanation is so strange that I wouldn't believe it. From gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 23 17:53:20 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:53:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E7CAB70.8000406@aol.com> On 23/09/2011 16:19, Robert Frick wrote: > I think there are two separate issues. Wasn't it Paul who discussed this? > If a player intentionally uses extraneous information, that is wrong, even > if the information is wrong or misleading and the player is hurt by the > use. You seem to be addressing this issue. (Ironically. L73 should > probably be serving this but does not.) I don't know to which Paul you refer, but I did contribute to another thread on another forum on this subject. I think Mr Burn argued that information should be considered in the sense of the meaning someone gives to data. However, it has to be about a board that one is playing or is still to play. If, for example, you heard someone loudly claiming that the king of clubs was singleton offside again, and you played successfully to drop the singleton king of clubs in a slam where you had a ten-card fit, then there would be no penalty if it turned out that the "information" came from a teams-of-four match playing different boards to the one where you attempted to use the EI. However, if you have wrong extraneous information that is about the current (or a future) board, and you use it successfully, then the same L73 and 16B assessment should be made of your actions. So, if you heard that "6NT was cold" on your next board, and you used that information even though it turned out to be wrong, but an unlucky lead lets you make this poor contract, then there would be an adjusted score. From bpark56 at comcast.net Fri Sep 23 18:04:45 2011 From: bpark56 at comcast.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:04:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7CAB70.8000406@aol.com> References: <4E7CAB70.8000406@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E7CAE1D.5050505@comcast.net> On 9/23/11 5:53 PM, PL wrote: > On 23/09/2011 16:19, Robert Frick wrote: >> I think there are two separate issues. Wasn't it Paul who discussed this? >> If a player intentionally uses extraneous information, that is wrong, even >> if the information is wrong or misleading and the player is hurt by the >> use. You seem to be addressing this issue. (Ironically. L73 should >> probably be serving this but does not.) > I don't know to which Paul you refer, but I did contribute to another > thread on another forum on this subject. I think Mr Burn argued that > information should be considered in the sense of the meaning someone > gives to data. However, it has to be about a board that one is playing > or is still to play. If, for example, you heard someone loudly claiming > that the king of clubs was singleton offside again, and you played > successfully to drop the singleton king of clubs in a slam where you had > a ten-card fit, then there would be no penalty if it turned out that the > "information" came from a teams-of-four match playing different boards > to the one where you attempted to use the EI. > > However, if you have wrong extraneous information that is about the > current (or a future) board, and you use it successfully, then the same > L73 and 16B assessment should be made of your actions. So, if you heard > that "6NT was cold" on your next board, and you used that information > even though it turned out to be wrong, but an unlucky lead lets you make > this poor contract, then there would be an adjusted score. > > Can you please point our which law says there should be an adjusted score? (I can understand a procedural penalty.) --bp From gampas at aol.com Fri Sep 23 18:15:25 2011 From: gampas at aol.com (PL) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:15:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7CAE1D.5050505@comcast.net> References: <4E7CAB70.8000406@aol.com> <4E7CAE1D.5050505@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4E7CB09D.70003@aol.com> On 23/09/2011 17:04, Robert Park wrote: > On 9/23/11 5:53 PM, PL wrote: >> On 23/09/2011 16:19, Robert Frick wrote: >>> I think there are two separate issues. Wasn't it Paul who discussed this? >>> If a player intentionally uses extraneous information, that is wrong, even >>> if the information is wrong or misleading and the player is hurt by the >>> use. You seem to be addressing this issue. (Ironically. L73 should >>> probably be serving this but does not.) >> I don't know to which Paul you refer, but I did contribute to another >> thread on another forum on this subject. I think Mr Burn argued that >> information should be considered in the sense of the meaning someone >> gives to data. However, it has to be about a board that one is playing >> or is still to play. If, for example, you heard someone loudly claiming >> that the king of clubs was singleton offside again, and you played >> successfully to drop the singleton king of clubs in a slam where you had >> a ten-card fit, then there would be no penalty if it turned out that the >> "information" came from a teams-of-four match playing different boards >> to the one where you attempted to use the EI. >> >> However, if you have wrong extraneous information that is about the >> current (or a future) board, and you use it successfully, then the same >> L73 and 16B assessment should be made of your actions. So, if you heard >> that "6NT was cold" on your next board, and you used that information >> even though it turned out to be wrong, but an unlucky lead lets you make >> this poor contract, then there would be an adjusted score. >> >> > Can you please point our which law says there should be an adjusted > score? (I can understand a procedural penalty.) > --bp > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml 16C2c if from outside. 16B3 if from partner. From nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 24 00:17:09 2011 From: nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:17:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7CA75D.9020307@ulb.ac.be> References: <4E7CA75D.9020307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6BEAEDF8B9E54869AC2BA395D968CA13@G3> [Nigel's simple test case] South: 2H holding S:AK H:Axxxxxx D:KQx C:A North: 4N holding S:x H:Qxxx D:x C:KQJxxxx South: 5D After audibly counting 1234 under his breath. North: 6H All pass Explanations: 2H = Strong 4N = RKC 5D = shows 0 or 3 key-cards according to the NS system (recently changedfrom 1 or 4 keycards) South has not made a mistake. He has 3 aces. He makes 6H when trumps split. He explains that he had started to count to ten (over partner?s jump bid) but ceased when he decided it was not his place to do so. I guess that ... Alain and Co would rule no adjustment because no ACTUAL UI. [Alain] To the contrary ; I would be very harsh against the player, who might well have found a way to show 3? aces (i.e. length subsitution for the missing HK) by showing three and counting up to four. The explanation is so strange that I wouldn't believe it. [Nigel] I supposed that the director believed South's explanation. Should he allow North to escape unpunished for what appears to be blatant use of UI? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Sep 26 13:58:40 2011 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:58:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] "mistaken UI" [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4E7CAB70.8000406@aol.com> References: <4E7CAB70.8000406@aol.com> Message-ID: <4E8068F0.4080403@ulb.ac.be> Le 23/09/2011 17:53, PL a ?crit : > On 23/09/2011 16:19, Robert Frick wrote: >> I think there are two separate issues. Wasn't it Paul who discussed this? >> If a player intentionally uses extraneous information, that is wrong, even >> if the information is wrong or misleading and the player is hurt by the >> use. You seem to be addressing this issue. (Ironically. L73 should >> probably be serving this but does not.) > I don't know to which Paul you refer, but I did contribute to another > thread on another forum on this subject. I think Mr Burn argued that > information should be considered in the sense of the meaning someone > gives to data. However, it has to be about a board that one is playing > or is still to play. If, for example, you heard someone loudly claiming > that the king of clubs was singleton offside again, and you played > successfully to drop the singleton king of clubs in a slam where you had > a ten-card fit, then there would be no penalty if it turned out that the > "information" came from a teams-of-four match playing different boards > to the one where you attempted to use the EI. > > However, if you have wrong extraneous information that is about the > current (or a future) board, and you use it successfully, then the same > L73 and 16B assessment should be made of your actions. So, if you heard > that "6NT was cold" on your next board, and you used that information > even though it turned out to be wrong, but an unlucky lead lets you make > this poor contract, then there would be an adjusted score. AG : or rather there should be. I don't like laws that are fundamentally impossible to enforce. And BTW, how would you ascertain that this information "demonstrably" helps on this very deal ? > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Sep 30 19:36:47 2011 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:36:47 -0400 Subject: [BLML] justifying a ruling? Message-ID: I was asked my opinion on a ruling yesterday, involving the club manager, who has been a director for 45 years. There are two possible outcomes: 1. She agrees with my ruling and thinks I am a good director. 2. She disagrees with my ruling and thinks I am not a good director. #2 has three variations. The first two: 2a. She is right and I am wrong, and she thinks I am not a good director. 2b. I am right and she is wrong, and she thinks I am not a good director. And... 2c. There is inadequate guidance, directors have different opinions, and half the people will think I am a bad director. So, she says to me "Show me that in the book. You are always pulling things out of the air." And she reminds me how long she has been directing. Of course, we can try to determine who is right. We can write to the ACBL and get an opinion, from someone who has at least passed the tournament directors' test. If that is the same opinion as mine, I win. Note that it doesn't matter whether me and the ACBL person are both right or both wrong, the key thing is agreement. If just one of us gets it wrong, I lose. We didn't get to that. Perhaps because she is on a losing streak on those. Instead, we consulted books. Since I know the literature and she doesn't, I can show her what I want her to see and hide the things I don't want her to see. Did I actually find the principle that she says I pulled out of the air? No. Meanwhile I found conflict and what seems to be inadequate guidance -- there is no way to know the correct ruling from just reading the things I found. The actual ruling probably doesn't matter, but I find it useful to be concrete instead of abstract. Her partner opened 1D and she (and everyone else) passed. She claimed that her pass was unintended, she meant to respond 1H. Can she change it? The principle I "pulled out of the air" was not to rule unintended bid when the supposed unintended bid came from a different part of the bidding box. I never found it written down anywhere. I dug some information out of a presumably out-of-print ACBL book. (I couldn't find anything on the internet today.) In inadvertency means "slip of the fingers -- a mechanical error. That scores big for me. Roughly put, it is pretty impossible to reach for 1H and end up with pass because of a mechanical error. Although she swears that is what happened. I don't show her the WBFLC minute saying the opposite, that mental errors and lapses of attention can count for unintended. I put a lot of weight in the ACBLLC minute saying that the standard of evidence should be fairly high for judging unintended. Unfortunately, the ACBL mentions this standard in a way that restricts it to unintended calls from dummy -- "There is to be a stong presumption that the card called is the card that was intended to be called." (This follows a discussion in which one of the examples was a bid, so it is not far-fetched to think the ACBLLC was considering both. Ton K., in his commentary, says that we rule unintended if the person could not have possibly wanted to make her bid. I didn't show her that, either, as she had about 8 HCP and a 5-card heart suit so she couldn't have possibly wanted to pass. However, a local expert pointed out that she might have missed an ace. If I am going to allow that people maybe missed an ace, then there aren't going to be a lot of calls that meet Ton's requirement. Also, to apply Ton's requirement, I have to look at her hand before ruling, something which many directors say is forbidden. I recall about a month ago letting someone change their bid, watching with dismay when she changed it to a somewhat distant bid, thinking to myself I just made the wrong ruling if she has the hand I now think she has. And she did have exactly that hand, so her first bid probably was intended. Then there is all that advice about pause for thought, which seems worthless. (The ACBL actually says that if I am called to the table for an insufficient bid, when I take the IBer away from the table, the first question I am supposed to ask is if the bid was unintended! Then if they answer yes I rule that their answer was without pause for thought?) . I know what you are thinking, what's the problem? The problem is, I can imagine better. But I guess only club directors have this problem.